|
Frinkahedron posted:This is all great. Greensboro was probably the best arena I've ever shot in, it's a shame that they're moving the tournament out of there for a while. At least DC is easy for me to get to. Man, I am in this same boat and I'm getting so tired of it. I want more separation, and I want a TC for baseball. These rule. I love the black background for wrestling, and the cheerleading has some nice composition going on. Good stuff. Couple of favorites from some high school baseball. Reaaaaally could use a TC.  2015-03-21_VBaseball_Fairfield-v-Harrison-013 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-03-21_VBaseball_Fairfield-v-Harrison-012 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-03-21_VBaseball_Fairfield-v-Harrison-010 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-03-21_VBaseball_Fairfield-v-Harrison-008 by nick.kneer, on Flickrand apparently to revisit my picture style for JPG on my camera, yeesh.
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
azathosk posted:I tried the 400mm f/2.8L at Norway vs Bulgaria last year and it is one of the best lenses I've ever used. I just need to sell a kidney. How does it feel to be ruined on glass forever after a taste of that? This dugout had some gorgeous light hitting it. Everything inside was painted black, and then the light coming in was indirect sunlight. Pretty nice.  NKPH9174 by nick.kneer, on Flickr NKPH9204 by nick.kneer, on Flickr NKPH9205 by nick.kneer, on Flickr NKPH9125 by nick.kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Learning how to shoot lacrosse. It's been fun! I requested an evaluation loan for the 135 f/2 for an engagement shoot I have tomorrow, but got the lens tonight and figured I'd give it a shot with lacrosse. 2015-04-17_BVLax_LakotaW-v-Mariemont-004 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-17_BVLax_LakotaW-v-Mariemont-005 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-17_BVLax_LakotaW-v-Mariemont-007 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-17_BVLax_LakotaW-v-Mariemont-003 by nick.kneer, on Flickrand one of the cheerleaders -- they're the only cheerleaders for lacrosse in the state of Ohio. Weird.  2015-04-17_BVLax_LakotaW-v-Mariemont-006 by nick.kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
oh man, if that photographer wasn't there that background would've been so fresh and so clean This past month has been a lot of lacrosse.  2015-04-29_RecentSports_001 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-25_RecentSports_001 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-28_RecentSports_001 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-25_RecentSports_003 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-28_RecentSports_001-2 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-29_RecentSports_004 by nick.kneer, on Flickr 2015-04-28_RecentSports_002 by nick.kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
xzzy posted:The pros only make it look easy because they machine gun everything that goes by and pray the autofocus does the right thing. They probably throw away 90% of everything they shoot as soon as it's copied off the flash card. lovely pros do that. Good pros don't create more editing and transferring work that slows them down under deadline.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
HAH SCHOO FOOTBAWL Things I realized 1. I am rusty as gently caress 2. You better nail the catch shots in freshman football, because you're only gonna get 2 or 3 passes per goddamn game. 3. 70-200 + 2x teleconverter is a godsend. Going to have to see how it does in lower light, but for day field sports it owns bones.  NKPH2274 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH2196 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH2161 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH2419 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH2554 by Nicholas Kneer, on FlickrAlso, here's some stuff from a kids' triathlon we put on at work.  NKPH1515 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH1504 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKPH1167 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
dakana fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Aug 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
friday night football got a little wet VFB-30 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr VFB-24 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr VFB-33 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr VFB-12 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr VFB-41 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
I'm jealous of the college action. I miss shooting on that level, for sure. I settle for high school, which is really all I can get at the moment. Can't complain too much, though! _KPH0053 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH0061 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH0137 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH0286 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _MG_0151 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _MG_0161 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _MG_0182 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
I won't be shooting as much as I want this season, but I'll likely do a decent amount of HS basketball. I didn't have a second body last season, so this season'll be fun -- I'm thinking I'll probably run a floor remote with my 17-35 on the 6D. I'd _love_ to rig up a backboard or over-the-hoop remote, but there's likely no way to do that in my position.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
^ yeah, that loving rules. I convinced a high school AD to let me put up a backboard remote for the freshman -> jv -> varsity triple header the other day. I'd never done it before, so I definitely learned a lot. 1. Placement: I tried to go for an overhead angle, but wasn't able to get the camera high & centered enough. I think for this angle to work you pretty much have to be up in the rafters (which don't exist in the high schools around me) and in front of the glass. Next time, I'll definitely pick a side (probably players' right) and go for a lower and more downward-looking angle. 2. Focus: I set it too high. I overestimated how far up players would come for rebounds and layups. There were a few times where players got high enough to hit the focus, but most of the time they were soft. Next time, I'll probably turn on the wifi on the 6D, connect to my phone, and dial in the focus during warmups. I had the WiFi off because I was concerned about battery life while it was up there for three games firing often, but by the end of the night I still had 3/4 bars. 3. Reflections: I didn't notice any during my testing, but that's probably because I didn't look hard enough and there weren't any people around to make them since the gym was pretty empty at the time. I'll make a reflection-blocking gobo next time out of black paper and gaffer's tape for sure.  _MG_0660 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _MG_0685 by Nicholas Kneer, on FlickrI was super concerned about safety, especially since it was my first time, so I had 4 safety cables on it -- one each for the camera, camera bracket, magic arm, and super clamp.  _KPH0933 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Couple favorites from the past 3 HS basketball game sets: _KPH0967 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH2429 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH2256 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _MG_6292 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH2976 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr _KPH1175 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
40ozOE posted:What remote trigger/transceiver are you using here? Looking to research some alternatives before dropping a chunk of change on PocketWizards. I'm still using the Yongnuo RF-602 system that I've had since college. Honestly, I haven't really had a reason to invest in PocketWizards yet. Since about 2009-2010 I've spent probably about $120 on them, giving myself 2 triggers, 4 receivers, and cords to attach to 2 Canon cameras, a Nikon camera, PC sync ports, and strobes. They've let me experiment at a ridiculously low cost. I started writing out some of my beefs with them, but then I looked up what their newer iterations are, and they actually have taken care of a lot of the problems. I didn't like that there wasn't a mechanism to lock down the hotshoe, but it looks like the RF-603 II transceivers have a locking wheel. It also bothers me that the triggers take a CR2 battery, but the transceivers take AAAs like the 602 receivers. It also looks like the on/off switch is a bit more robust and harder to accidentally hit, which is nice because I've turned my 602s on in my bag. I can't really remember a time where they'd poo poo the bed and triggered intermittently or anything. They've been pretty reliable. They aren't the most durable or high-quality, but they've always gotten the job done. I'd go with the Yongnuo RF-603 II transceivers. It'll let you trigger a camera or a flash and it's dirt cheap. The flash triggering is "dumb" in the sense that it'll just tell it to fire -- you can't use TTL, HSS, or control flash settings like power and zoom. Yongnuo does make a set of flash triggers that give you wireless flash control, HSS, TTL, etc, (the 622 set) but they aren't a remote camera trigger. I do own them, though, because wireless HSS is amazing. DJExile posted:Um excuse me but wide angle lenses are never appropriate for sports photos nor are wide angle lenses appropriate for birds. BREAK RULES. HAIL SATAN.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
azathosk posted:I've started to shoot with a remote trigger/reciever this season myself. This is from one of my attempts: Nice! I'll likely be trying some goal remote shenanigans when HS soccer rolls around in the spring. Man, now I'm thinking about baseball/softball, too. Maybe my 85 near the plate shooting the batters so I can focus on fielding with my 70-200 and 2x. REMOTES EVERYWHERE, ALL THE TIME. And that's typically what I do with my transmitter when I'm shooting on the same side of the court as the remote. Usually, if the action comes to my side of the court, I'll switch the transmitter on. I leave it off otherwise so that I don't have a whole bunch of empty photos from when I'm shooting defense or mid-court stuff with my long lens. Helen Highwater posted:Probably not. It's a 2.4GHz transmitter that's powered by a CR2 battery. In ideal situations (no obstructions, no interference from Bluetooth, microwaves, etc) you're probably looking at about 60m or so as an effective maximum range. I have a set of the 602 triggers and the range is ok for indoor shooting or lights but you probably aren't going to be able to use it for remote cameras at opposite ends of a sports field. Yeah, I'm comfortable triggering from across a basketball court (and haven't had any issues with interference from a crowded gym, audio and scoreboard systems, wifi, etc) but I'm not sure how successful it'd be across the length of a football/soccer field.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
I've been busy with softball and baseball mostly, and then had my first track & field meet. I had fun! 2016-04-19_recent-sports_0002 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-19_recent-sports_0003 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-18_recent-sports_0014 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-18_recent-sports_0013 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-18_recent-sports_0012 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-14_recent-sports_0009 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-14_recent-sports_0007 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-14_recent-sports_0006 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2016-04-14_recent-sports_0010 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Whoa, thanks guys. So, a bit of backstory: I'm shooting high school sports on the side with an outlet called Varsity Views. Basically, they send photographers to games, pay them $35/game, and expect ~200 unedited JPGs from at least half the game, to be uploaded the same day. The standards aren't super high, obviously, to reach that ~200 number -- their business model is more views = more ad revenue (among other things -- they're exploring having boosters or parent groups pay for "premium coverage", licensing photos to other outlets, etc. They're also branching out into journalism, it seems.), so they're looking for somewhat saturation coverage. Peek into an album to see what I mean. Basically, it means I'll take and include shots I probably wouldn't usually take -- warm-ups, every batter, ready stances, etc -- because honestly the goal is to give kids photos that they can share to Facebook. So it's not exactly high, pure photojournalism, but they make it worth my time to have fun shooting sports. And, I make my own schedule -- they have a shiftboard website where you sign up for games whenever you want, basically. I usually do 2-3 evenings a week because I work full-time. And, of course, it doesn't stop me from going for photos that I want to take. If it sounds like something any of you would be interested in, check out the website, see what cities they're in, and let me know. I think I get like $50 if I refer someone, so that'd be rad. Frinkahedron posted:Man am I a huge sucker for shots like this and this fits my bill perfectly. A guy I know is the main multimedia person for The American Legion, so I think I'm probably affected by him.  I'm still waiting for this field to be lit right so I can incorporate some of the silhouettes of Kings Island, which is visible from the field. It's been lovely light for that angle so far, though. Some day... EL BROMANCE posted:Ha yeah that whole post is good as a 'Newbs eat my dust' example. How you got that ball in focus between pitcher and catcher both out of focus is... Goddamn. I was very lucky to get involved with a student newspaper in college that got me on the field and court for 4 years -- that gave me a bunch of really cool experiences. DJExile posted:I believe the trick to this is pre-focusing to a distance between both and praying your burst mode/motor drive takes one just as the ball finds that area. It's tricky but yeah it owns super drat hard if you can get it. That's pretty much it, yeah! I just manually focused on a spot in between the pitcher & batter (and this is with a 70-200 with a 2x on it, so 400mm, wide open at 5.6) and BURST MODE BEST MODE after the release and prayed. It took 4-5 pitches to get it, and it definitely could be better. It's a fun one to take! 40ozOE posted:All of these shots are nice. I've shot about eight or ten softball games this season and now I can appreciate how difficult it can be to get a great action shot of the infield. You can shoot the stationary batter and pitcher all day but a dramatic diving catch only happens sporadically. Thanks dude! I've really been working on those infield shots. I've got a buddy at the Cincinnati Enquirer shooting dynamite stuff of Reds games and have been inspired lately. Since I'm shooting for a decent volume, though, I've until recently been able to just sit on the shortstop or 3rd baseman waiting for a line drive or grounder at them. I solved this particular issue by setting up a remote camera on the batter (6d with my 85mm) and triggering it with my left hand (I've figured out a way to hold it in my palm and press the trigger with my pinky in a way that leaves my other fingers free for the zoom ring) so that I can shoot the at-bats while set up on the infielders. I was really happy with that diving photo -- it's the first one I've gotten so far. Maybe one day I'll get one that's an actual catch 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
Frinkahedron posted:Almost all of what I would consider my "best" sports photos were taken not during the run of play, but a celebration or defeat after. Emotions count. Agreed. These are my two favorite sports photos I've ever taken, I think:  AppPor-4 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr NKneer-Po-36 by Nicholas Kneer, on FlickrThe first was taken with a Digital Rebel XT, kit lens, and 430EX flash -- I happened to be on the closest side of the court to that pileup and sprinted my rear end off to get there as fast as I could. The second one could be better -- the distracting blocker on the left, the lack of real endzone paint, the motion blur on the defender's face -- but I still love the way the runner's eyes are locked on that pylon and the fact that there's a narrative.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Soulex posted:The one on the right was the original edit. The left is after I added a Vibrancy layer. You're going to have trouble editing photos from poorly-lit stadiums, because you're going to be dealing with lovely light temperatures, flickering lights that might cast a different color temperature on one part of your frame, uneven lighting causing a dynamic range your camera can't capture, and then the fact that you already had to crank up the ISO so high so your dynamic range is reduced, your color range is reduced, etc. At that point, you're fighting a losing battle and the best way to do things is try and edit as cleanly as possible and realize that it's not going to look as pretty as stuff shot in better-lit venues or with better equipment (and even then even the best equipment can't fully compensate for bad light).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2017 14:37
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Hey everyone. I just got an email from my athletic department asking me if I want to shoot men and women’s basketball. I literally know nothing beyond three point line, can’t tackle, can’t run with the ball and don’t granny shoot. I’m thinking of saying yes, I’ve just never really watched a game before so I don’t even know the rules. They really liked me shooting the men’s soccer team though and asked me on for the basketball season. Just home games. You'd probably be fine. Generally you're OK if you follow the ball, and you don't move around once you sit your rear end down near the basket. 70-200 is fine on full frame, but might be a little tight on a crop sensor. You'd probably be well served watching some plays on YouTube to get a feel for the action. Bread-and-butter shots will usually be layups, rebounds, people driving toward the basket, and any scrums over a loose ball / steals.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
Soulex posted:Thanks. It's kinda new to me, but I played baseball so it's same thing except pitchers have to throw it underhand. Pretty good stuff. You're doing a good job with color in what looks like a challenging environment. #3 might be a touch hot - your camera might've gotten confused with the dark background. I see what you were going for with #4 with showing the pass, but I don't think the action and involvement is quite there - definitely not as good as the rest of your frames. Don't be afraid to crop in a little closer on #1 - match what you did with #3 in really zeroing in on the interesting stuff. I had an unexpected chance to shoot a varsity girl's basketball game on Sunday. The outlet I used to shoot 2-3 games/week for ran out of capital and now only covers games they get contracted for through parents groups, boosters, etc. It was a nice surprise to get to shoot some sports again -- this one was senior night and the game that clinched the conference championship, so it was a lot of fun.  2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_1 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_4 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_6 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_7 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_9 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_10 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr 2018-02-10_GVBkB_Sboro-v-Lnon_12 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 12, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
Helen Highwater posted:A small grey card is fine. Your camera doesn't have to focus on it. Switch the lens to manual focus, hold the grey card close enough to cover most of the frame and then shoot. Soulex posted:Also thanks a bunch for noticing the colors, they have always been a point of contention for me (these guys have been super helpful) and that just means I found a good balance. One thing that's always going to be difficult is accounting for color casts from the floor, from those lighted advertisement screens, and from uniforms. Especially when players are driving to the basket or are in close proximity to other players with colorful jerseys, their skin will get hit with reflected light from the floor and jerseys, and it's going to be screwy. So, do your best with a gray card, but just have the knowledge that it isn't going to be perfect depending on the circumstances (so don't stress too hard). Also, what's up 5d3 buddy? My primary focus is weddings and portraits so I have one of these and a 6D. Definitely get into remote work -- it's a ton of fun. I convinced a high school AD to let me mount a backboard remote (the 6D with a 17-35 on it) for a few games and it was a blast.  20160205_211826 by Nicholas Kneer, on FlickrI was terrified of it falling, so I had safety cables on the camera, on the magic arm, on the camera platform, and on the clamp independently.  IMG_2961 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2018 21:42
|
|
|
Soulex posted:I’ve used the clone tool a few times but I’m horrible at it. I stick to LightRoom but I can always go back to Photoshop if needed. Not like I know that better. I've found Lightroom's noise reduction works really well and use that -- usually around 15-25. I have the noise reduction turned off in my camera as well (I usually shoot JPG for sports). I also set Lightroom's sharpening to 0, and export as maximum quality JPGs. Then, I run them through Image Processing in Photoshop, hitting it with an Unsharp mask action and saving as a more reasonable quality for file-size reasons. One other thing -- if you do end up shooting for a journalistic publication, just be aware that any image-altering things like using a clone tool is verboten. There are some pretty strict ethical standards photojournalists need to follow -- taking a very light hand in editing, and only doing minor color and exposure corrections.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
Soulex posted:That’s totally different than my workflow. I shoot RAW and do it all in LR but I hit light noise at around 40-50. At least for the past few games. Thanks. Any reason why JPG? I usually shoot JPG for sports for speed. When I shot for the newspaper, it was speed of getting images selected, processed, and transmitted for publication deadlines. When I shoot high school sports, I need to have them uploaded the same day, so it's just faster to transfer, cull, process, and upload if they're already JPGs to begin with. Especially if I'm coming home with 2k images, I don't want that to be 50GB worth of images. It absolutely makes white balance and exposure a lot more important, though, and the decision process of whether you're OK with 1/500 or 1/640 or if you want to push the ISO just a bit more so you can get to 1/800 or 1/1000 is more significant. Almost everything else I shoot, though, I shoot in RAW. That means weddings are ~75-100GB, but I have time to process them and the income from them funds the storage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
Soulex posted:That DOF gonna be razor thin at 1.8. From the distances you shoot from for sports, you'll have more than enough, and it'll actually help your subject separation. Most pros shoot 400 2.8 all the time. This is 135mm at f/2, for example:  2015-04-17_BVLax_LakotaW-v-Mariemont-004 by Nicholas Kneer, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2019 16:13
|
|
|
Soulex posted:This is true, but also could be harmful if you want a clearer image. I noticed a lot of blur around the edges of my photos, sometimes the legs would be out of focus while the face is sharp when wide open. Maybe this is a bigger issue for full-frame cameras than crop, I don't know. What I do know, is that moving a little bit to F3.2 or something helped keep the entire subject in focus. Sometimes my photo would have the chest in focus, and the face would be slightly blurry. There's a large room for possible error whereas F4 or similar could eliminate potential issues. Soulex posted:Yeah. I agree. I guess I piped up because with my lens, it is definitely noticable and I feel like its ruined some otherwise good shots of mine. DoF is last priority, just want to make sure not ignored. That could either be an issue with your lens being soft in the corners, or it could be a shutter speed issue if the legs are moving faster than the face (or in a different direction than your pan). It will be more pronounced for the same lens on a full-frame camera than it is on a crop sensor because the crop sensor uses a smaller portion of the image circle -- from the center, which is the typically the sharpest area of the lens. Upload some samples if you don't mind -- it might just be motion blur, or it could be softness with your lens. I've only ever had corner softness be pronounced and noticeable on my super cheap Tamron 17-35 2.8-4 on a full frame at 17mm and at 2.8, and on the 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 kit lens I had on my Digital Rebel XT in 2008.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2019 02:24
|
|
|
Atlatl posted:thanks! Log rolling was very cool and I want to shoot more of it. I'll be the aquatics guy I guess so at least I'll have access to all of that. One of the unfortunate realities of shooting basketball in gyms like this is that there's really only so much you can do, even with the best gear. You can try an anti-flicker setting if your camera has it, but you sort of have to resign yourself to the fact that some of your shots are going to get messed up from cycling lights. Shooting in RAW can help but RIP your storage and processing times. If you're on a deadline, it's probably not feasible, but if you have a bit of time, you can correct for white balance differences. Same thing for the orange hue off the wood - especially if you get a shorter guy driving to the basket, he's gonna be more orange than the rest of the photo. You can white balance for that player's skin and let the rest of the photo fall in the blues, or do a targeted adjustment brush (time-consuming) to correct just the affected player. All this is to say that really, focusing on learning how to shoot the sport, keeping your eyes peeled for important moments, honing your tracking and focusing skills, and generally refining how you shoot and approach documenting games is going to do more for your photography than trying to correct for things that are out of your control. dakana fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Sep 1, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2019 18:36
|
|
|
Managed to pick up some freelance work for the Cincinnati Enquirer doing high school sports. Editor has been great to work with so far, so here's hoping this'll continue for a bit. This was my first real sports tests for my A7RIII. I also just picked up the Sony 70-200 2.8 GM. Expensive lenses and no used market sucks, but this lens *killed it*. Keeper rate was better than my 5D3+70-200 2.8L II combo, and that's including in the super lovely light of f/2.8, 1/800 and ISO 8000. Observations: having 42MP at my disposal for cropping owns really hard. I also realized that APS-C crop mode is actually really drat useful -- I assigned it to the lens button so I could essentially click on a 1.6x TC at will. It's the same IQ as if I'd just cropped, but it's so much easier to follow the action and focus in crop mode because the viewfinder zooms in. Overall, I was super happy with the performance. It's kind of a shame that the Sony 2X TC and 70-200 is hot garbage at 5.6, whereas the Canon 2X III and 70-200 are actually pretty usable if you could focus.       
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2019 03:16
|
|
|
I've been very lucky. This is the closest call I had over 4 years of college football shooting -- I'm in the gray sweatshirt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTKHfIvXIio I did have a friend who was sitting right next to me get demolished by a basketball player at a women's game, though. He'd started lowering the camera from his eye, and the metal back of the hotshoe slammed into his chin. Lots of blood, got first-aided by a cute trainer, went on a date with her.   **nsfw: gross chin divot injury** 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 3, 2019 15:49
|
|
|
Soulex posted:As someone with your old set up looking to move to your new one, this is great news. Did you sell your old gear or keep it? Initially, I sold my 5D3 and 6D and picked up the A7RIII and a Sigma MC-E11 adapter. I've been adapting my EF mount lenses — Tamron 17-35 2.8-4, Sigma 24 1.4 Art, Canon 50 1.2L, Canon 85 1.8, and Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II — for a bit. For weddings it's been working well -- the 24, 50, and 85 focus really well in particular with the adapter, but the 70-200 was terrible. Lots of hunting and times where it just couldn't find focus without helping it manually, so I prioritized replacing it. I knew it would've been unusable for football, so that's when I picked up the Sony 70-200 2.8. Now I'm looking to sell my Canon 70-200 and 2x TC III. Down the line, I might slowly start replacing my Canon stuff with Sony for marginal improvements in AF accuracy and speed especially in low light as well as just to simplify things. I think if you need the reach of a 400mm, I think the 100-400 is probably the best way to do it because the Sony 2x TC really isn't great. I shot the 70-200 and 2x III on Canon for baseball, soccer and football when I had a bit of light, and it worked really well. Looking online, though, the Sony 70-200 and 2x don't seem to be a super usable combo wrt IQ and AF. For my purposes, I'd get more use out of the 70-200 for weddings and portraits, and can make do with cropping on sports which are a lower priority (and moneymaker) for me. It looks like they'll be announcing an A9 II in October, so you might want to wait until that to see if it drives down the current A9 prices (or if you want the II if you've got the cash). Speaking of cash, if you're looking to save, the 61MP A7RIV is pretty nuts, but beyond the resolution bump from the A7RIII's 42mp, there aren't a ton of significant differences. You might save some money getting an RIII and still get the features you want.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2019 15:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 07:02 |
|
|
Dangerllama posted:So I tried shooting my son’s first futsal game of the season and had some difficulty. Basic settings were f/3.5 or whatever was lowest for the focal length (Fuji 18-55). Set shutter speed to 1/250 and floated the ISO up to 6400 *all JPEG. With the shutter set to continuous high, I was still getting pretty well under-exposed images. Interestingly, the viewfinder showed a proper exposure when I half-pressed the shutter. But when I took the sequence the viewfinder immediately showed under-exposed images coming off the camera. So, frame rate shouldn't have any affect on your exposure. I'm not sure if your camera has a "settings effect" where it adjusts the electronic viewfinder to reflect what the exposure will be when you take the photo, but if it does and you're getting underexposed images, you might be having an issue with flickering. This happens under some artificial light sources that look to be continuous to our eyes, but are in reality oscillating in power and color. When you take a photo with an exposure time shorter than its oscillation rate, you get weird color casts and the like. A lot of newer cameras have anti-flicker capture modes that time the exposure to maximize the light you get from the light sources in the scene by lining up with the oscillation rates. This improves your shot-to-shot color and exposure consistency greatly. If your images are still underexposed and you're using an automatic exposure program, your camera is just not exposing the scene properly and you should either take full manual control or else use exposure compensation to tell the camera to increase the exposure. For most action, your absolute bare minimum shutter speed is 1/500, and I typically aim for at least 1/1000. With that in mind, if you're using the fastest possible aperture you have, your only choice with the gear you currently have is to keep increasing the ISO, or else buy a different lens.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2019 16:54
|
|