Use a tripod and use bracket exposure on your camera.

Video has supposedly leaked of a new Canon APS-C DSLR. The new Canon 90D will theoretically be the replacement for both the 80D and 7D-MKII. 32.5MP sensor, 10fps, and 4K video.

Info here.

Just found out I'm going to be shooting my son's football games for his school. I've been using a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR on a Nikon D7100 to shoot soccer for several years with pretty good results. I plan on using a second body with a Sigma 17-70 as well. Curious if there are any affordable lenses that might be recommended other than these. I'd love a 70-200 2.8, but not finding any that I want to spend money on right now. Plus I like the 300 reach. Giving up some speed, but these games are all late afternoon to early evening so no night shooting so the 2.8 isn't an absolute necessity yet.

Have you thought about used 70-200 2.8's? I'm still shooting with a 70-200 VR (2 generations have come out since then) that I bought used at the end of 2009 and I still like it even after upgrading from D7000 to D750. Also, not sure what is allowed in your league but when I did my son's 5th and 6th grade games I was chosen as the only parent able to roam in the team box on the sidelines with a camera. I used a monopod almost all the time.

Even used, 70-200 2.8 are a bit more than i want to devote to gear right now. I typically haven't used a monopod. I'm usually shooting fast enough that I don't need one, and this lens is not that heavy. If I had a heavier lens I probably would though.

After working with Lightroom for about a month, I know I need to streamline my work or clone myself. What are your steps to cull / rate your photos in advance of and editing?

I have a basic set of adjustments that are applied on import that usually gets them 80% of the way there. . Then I pick the winners. Sometimes I go through them twice if I'm starting with a ton of pictures. Then I work on the winners until they are done. I use the built in rating tools in the culling process.

I use a process similar to Jethro's. I import using a preset that fits my overall style: boosting the contrast and saturation mostly so minimal individual adjustments are necessary later on. Then I go through fairly quickly and either outright delete obvious rejects (backspace+D is a nice shortcut), or assigning a rating to the photo for later manipulation. I rate numerically, usually with a 2 for borderline keeper to 4 for definite winner using the numeric keyboard on the right side of my laptop, super easy with one key press.

Since I usually shoot birds/wildlife, I often screen shots zoomed in 1:2 to get a good feel for focus on the eye or face. That alone often determines if a shot is a keeper for me. After the initial screen, I turn on filters on the lower right of the pane, which weeds out unrated shots and leaves the winners and borderline keepers for further review. Then minor adjustments for exposure, WB, curves, etc.

Is there a quick way to view potentially thousands of photos in Lightroom much like a contact sheet? This is for gamecam photos which are mostly shots of grass until I scroll through and see something useful, ie. an elk or other critter. I usually do this with Quick Look on my Macbook, but am looking for alternatives.

I cull in Photo Mechanic.

You can see tons of pics in photo mechanic and it moves through them quicker than any other software.

Guitarsoup said:

---

I cull in Photo Mechanic.

You can see tons of pics in photo mechanic and it moves through them quicker than any other software.

---

Did you upgrade to 6? Lots of complaints about slowness.

Nope

dave99ag said:

---

Is there a quick way to view potentially thousands of photos in Lightroom much like a contact sheet? This is for gamecam photos which are mostly shots of grass until I scroll through and see something useful, ie. an elk or other critter. I usually do this with Quick Look on my Macbook, but am looking for alternatives.

---

When I first import into LR, the grid view is what comes up first. That has maybe a couple dozen or so photos showing all at once, in more or less thumbnails. That can be helpful in seeing if something looks different from the others. Even with one photo filling the pane, you can also hover the cursor over a photo in the strip at the bottom and it will show that photo in the preview in the upper left corner.

Testing out Photo Mechanic and it just might do the trick.

Let me know if you have questions.

Dude. I had no idea these shortcuts and filters existed. Just edited a soccer tournament and this totally revolutionized my workflow. Got done in half the time.

Sweet!

Neat video about lens choice.

Sweet Kitten Feet said:

---

Just found out I'm going to be shooting my son's football games for his school. I've been using a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR on a Nikon D7100 to shoot soccer for several years with pretty good results. I plan on using a second body with a Sigma 17-70 as well. Curious if there are any affordable lenses that might be recommended other than these. I'd love a 70-200 2.8, but not finding any that I want to spend money on right now. Plus I like the 300 reach. Giving up some speed, but these games are all late afternoon to early evening so no night shooting so the 2.8 isn't an absolute necessity yet.

---

I would rather have a D7500 + 70-200 f/4 than a D7100 + 70-200 f/2.8. The ISO performance of the D7500 will more than make up for the 1 stop difference in aperture. Plus, it is much lighter to carry.

You can get a refurbished D7500 for $600 (at B&H) and a used 70-200 f/4 for $850 (KEH).

Couldn't disagree more. The high iso noise difference will be less than 1/3rd stop. The real world difference in noise handling will be negligible.

When in doubt, invest the money in lenses, not cameras.

Both cameras have wifi. Both shoot pretty fast for FPS.

The 7500 has an articulating screen, but the 7100 is fixed. The 7500 is a touch screen, too.

The 7500 has 4K video, too.

The difference in weight between the two cameras is about 1.5 ounces.

Main 7500 advantages:
Bluetooth
UHS-1 (faster writing)
Screen that moves
4K Video
Better low-light auto focus


The image quality will be very similar between the two cameras.

I am in no position to argue with you, but I stand by my comments. The question wasn't asking for the best lens for a pro photog, he was asking for a more economical solution to shoot his sons football games.

when I said the D7500 + 70-200f/4 was lighter I was referring to the lens, not the body. There is a huge difference in the 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/2.8 in size and weight.

I haven't owned a D7100, but I do own a D7000 and D7500. I have also owned a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (older version) and the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 f/4 is a bargain and and excellent lens, pair it with a body with better high iso performance and the speed of the lens is negated. D7500 and 700-200 f/4 is cheaper than a 70-200 f/2.8 and will provide excellent iq for the average hobbiest.

Sweet Kitten Feet said:

---

Just found out I'm going to be shooting my son's football games for his school. I've been using a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 VR on a Nikon D7100 to shoot soccer for several years with pretty good results. I plan on using a second body with a Sigma 17-70 as well. Curious if there are any affordable lenses that might be recommended other than these. I'd love a 70-200 2.8, but not finding any that I want to spend money on right now. Plus I like the 300 reach. Giving up some speed, but these games are all late afternoon to early evening so no night shooting so the 2.8 isn't an absolute necessity yet.

---

Do you find yourself shooting at mostly 300mm on your 70-300 zoom? If so, one option to consider is a 300 f4 prime lens. I have used one for shooting from the stands at football games with good success, very sharp lens. It can easily be paired with a 1.4 teleconverter for 420mm if needed. They can usually be found used for a reasonable price.

ATL Aggie said:

---

I am in no position to argue with you, but I stand by my comments. The question wasn't asking for the best lens for a pro photog, he was asking for a more economical solution to shoot his sons football games.

when I said the D7500 + 70-200f/4 was lighter I was referring to the lens, not the body. There is a huge difference in the 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/2.8 in size and weight.

I haven't owned a D7100, but I do own a D7000 and D7500. I have also owned a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (older version) and the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 f/4 is a bargain and and excellent lens, pair it with a body with better high iso performance and the speed of the lens is negated. D7500 and 700-200 f/4 is cheaper than a 70-200 f/2.8 and will provide excellent iq for the average hobbiest.

---

Now that I am sober, let me clarify what I was trying to say:

I recommend Sweet Kitten Feet purchase a 70-200 f/4 as a sports lens. You will give up some length compared to your 70-300, but you are getting a superior sports lens. Keep the 70-300 for travel. If the 70-200 f/4 isnt fast enough for your intended use, I would consider a body with better iso performance paired with the 70-200 f/4 rather than purchasing a 70-200 f/2.8 because the f/2.8 is a beast and it costs a lot more. The weight difference is about 1.5 lbs, which may not sound like much, but I much prefer to carry the f/4.

When you factor in cost, size, weight, and image quality, I think the 70-200 f/4 is a better choice for many amateurs. Sure, some will find that it isnt wide enough for their intended use and may need the f/2.8. But considering that Sweet Kitten Feet is shooting mostly in late afternoon and early evening I would think the f/4 is plenty fast.

Guitarsoup said the iso performance of the D7500 compared to the D7100 is only 1/3 of a stop. If that is true, then I certainly would not upgrade to a D7500 for its iso performance. I would have thought you would get better than 1/3 stop, but Guitarsoup certainly is more knowledgeable than I am.

ATL Aggie said:

---

I am in no position to argue with you, but I stand by my comments. The question wasn't asking for the best lens for a pro photog, he was asking for a more economical solution to shoot his sons football games.

when I said the D7500 + 70-200f/4 was lighter I was referring to the lens, not the body. There is a huge difference in the 70-200 f/4 vs 70-200 f/2.8 in size and weight.

I haven't owned a D7100, but I do own a D7000 and D7500. I have also owned a 70-200 f/2.8 VR (older version) and the 70-200 f/4. The 70-200 f/4 is a bargain and and excellent lens, pair it with a body with better high iso performance and the speed of the lens is negated. D7500 and 700-200 f/4 is cheaper than a 70-200 f/2.8 and will provide excellent iq for the average hobbiest.

---

I'm not talking about pros stuff. I have the same suggestion to anyone - invest in the glass, not the camera.

The 70-200 f4 is lighter and easier to handle - very true.


You said the D7500 will have a stop better of low-light/high ISO handling and that is my main contention point. Image quality wise, the two cameras will be nearly identical. There really hasn't been a big change over the past 10 or so years in crop body sensor low-light noise. My D500 is going to be about the same as both those cameras on image quality.

If they are shooting field sports, a 70-200 probably won't give the desired look anyway- it just isn't long enough.

Older 200-400s are starting to go in the 1400-2500 range, which is an excellent deal, if you want to carry around that type of weight. You can grab a 300 2.8D used under $1k. It's gonna be an older model, but you could probably use it for a year or two and sell it for the same price. The older 70-200 2.8G VR can be had for 800. The 70-200GVR II (what I use) can be had in the 1000-1500 range depending on condition. The used 70-200 f4 is in the 800 range.

KEH has a 200-400 f4 with case, caps, and hood for $1500. Bargain condition, but I trust their bargain condition.

If you are mainly going to be in daylight, the Nikon 28-300 is actually a decent lens, but don't expect the beautiful, blurry background with it that you would get on a 300 2.8. That lens is in the 500-750 range.

Lots of options around. But I would absolutely spend more on the lens and less on the body, especially when talking about field sports.

Camera bodies are like buying cars. They go out of date quickly and do not hold their value.

Lenses are like real estate. They will last you a long time and hold their value

The low light rating of a D7000 (released in 2010) is about 1200. The low light rating of a D7500 (released 2017, newest crop body) is just under 1500. The D7100 is 1250.

1250 to 1600 is 1/3rd stop. 1250 to 2500 is 1 stop.

The new Nikon Z6 is a 3300. The D4/s is about 3200. (My primary is still the D4 bodies I bought in 2013.)

Moving up to a flagship full frame only gets you about 1 1/3 stops over the crop body sensor from 10 years ago.

But that is a mathematical testing of that noise.

The quality and appeal of the low-light noise is a different thing. For instance, the Canon 5D3 and Nikon D800 ( owned and used both extensively) have about 1/3rd difference in ISO ratings, but the real world use in the quality of the noise is VERY different and the Canon looks significantly worse because it has green/magenta noise, while the Nikon's was a more film-like grain noise. That noise difference became significantly noticeable if you changed the exposure value at all in post.

I've never used a D7500, but I do use a D7100 every day for studio headshots. It just sits on a tripod and shoots iso 100 f9 all day and does well, but that isn't any real test of the camera.

Been doing some side hustles to help pay for a major yard renovation, but also picked up some extra to buy a lens for going to the Rocky Mountains in October. I've got a Sony a6000 (will be upgrading to the 6600 eventually, don't want to rebuy lenses). Need some advice.
I've got two prime lenses going with me,
Rokinon 12/2 and the Sony 50. I'll have my GoPro hero7black and Tripod.
Next lens should be? And a good backpack/hiking bag?

For the bag. We talking overnight, day hike? How much non- camera gear will you want in thr bag?

I found hiking backpacks and camera backpacks are not usually very aligned

One that I did find that was the MindShift Rotation
I bought one for a trip Zion earlier this year and liked it -- it would be tough to do a longer overnight trip with it because you do lose a lot of space because of the camera pouch part

UpstateAg said:

---

Been doing some side hustles to help pay for a major yard renovation, but also picked up some extra to buy a lens for going to the Rocky Mountains in October. I've got a Sony a6000 (will be upgrading to the 6600 eventually, don't want to rebuy lenses). Need some advice.
I've got two prime lenses going with me,
Rokinon 12/2 and the Sony 50. I'll have my GoPro hero7black and Tripod.
Next lens should be? And a good backpack/hiking bag?

---

Take a look at Tenba BOYB bags. They make a few different sizes of backpack inserts that fit into a hiking backpack. I have found this to be a better solution than a camera bag backpack.

I have a couple of Osprey packs and then I use a Tenba insert or two depending on what I'm carrying.

Honestly, I struggled with buying a camera bag for when I"m in the mountains. I think the best option out there is likely the Shimoda stuff, but honestly I balked at paying that much for a system. Its just too damn much to buy something to specialized, IMO.

In the end the best solution I've found for me is using my an Osprey framed bag that I know is comfortable and sturdy along with a couple of the Temba BYOB inserts. This has been a great solution, is much cheaper, and I KNOW the bag will last and be comfortable.

Sweet Kitten Feet said:

---

I have a couple of Osprey packs and then I use a Tenba insert or two depending on what I'm carrying.

---

I meant to post my above as a reply to this. For me this is 100% the best way to go.