GS or others, any tips on my volleyball shoot questions above?

Anyone else in Houston going out to the airshow today

GS,

If I've decided that baseball is my priority then what do you think about this combo:

Nikon D5000 w/ AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

or

Canon EOS Rebel T2i Digital SLR Camera w/ EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens





[This message has been edited by Reload 92 (edited 10/23/2010 10:05p).]

[This message has been edited by Reload 92 (edited 10/24/2010 12:02p).]

Biochem, I was out there all day today. It was pretty good, considering the wind and mostly cloudy skies.

quote:

---

GS or others, any tips on my volleyball shoot questions above?

---

I'll give it a whirl.

1 - Likely due to the lights cycling. It's pretty much unavoidable in smaller venues. Adjusting the WB in post will help. There was a good topic on it on SportsShooter - http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=20873

2 - Center point focus is usually the best way to go. Volleyball's a particularly sport to shoot, but it sounds like you should back up or zoom out to help. Cropping is perfectly acceptable for sports.

3 - I don't own a grip, so I can't help there. It sounds like you're moving your hand that controls the shutter underneath the camera. It's much easier (and comfortable) to move it above the camera.

4 - You don't always need the full body to make a picture work. You can have a great shot shooting from the waist up - facial expressions are usually the most important thing in these shots. That being said, you shouldn't be afraid to crop to make your shots work. There's a limit, of course, but it's not practical to have every shot framed perfectly as you're shooting.

I have an opportunity to get a Canon 24-70mm L for a pretty good price. Should I ditch my Tamron 28-75 and get some cash for it since it's the same focal range, or should I just pick up the Canon lens anyway and keep the Tamron as a 'backup'?

[This message has been edited by Lloyd Christmas (edited 10/25/2010 9:13p).]

quote:

---

My settings were aperture priority, 2.8 (Tamron 28-75), 3200 ISO, and WB set on fluorescent.

---

Use Manual. You are in controlled lighting, so the exposure isn't going to differ much, but the camera may think it is. It is much quicker to edit after the fact if the pictures are all off by the same amount and you can batch edit the exposure rather than every other one is off by 1/3rd.

quote:

---

For some reason the color/tone(?) changed from shot to shot.

---

That's pretty normal in Flourescent. The lights cycle colors. When shooting sports, you are using a fast shutter speed, so you only get part of the cycle. You will get green/pink casts varying. Just the nature of the beast.

quote:

---

I left my focal point at the center dot for the majority of my shooting because I found it easiest to target the athletes' center mass. In hindsight (shooting vertically), this captured a lot of the crowd above them, and less of the floor, is that ideal?

---

I'd have to see, but you generally don't want the face centered. If there is a lot of negative space above, move the AF spot and try something else until you get a composition you like.

quote:

---

It was also really hard to quickly target the action when sitting so close (probably the nature with most sports, I'm just not used to it).

---

Yep. It gets better with experience. Same thing with football. In my 300mm lens on a 1.6x crop body, my field of view is only about 2 degrees. If you lose the play, it is really hard to get it back.

quote:

---

Even if I could get pointed in the right direction, my center focal dot didn't always line up right and my subject would be out of focus. Is that just the nature of it, or is there a better way to focus?

---

I only use single spot focus, and I believe most other sports photographers are the same.

quote:

---

I know there's a button you can hit with your right thumb that blinks all the reds focal points - should I use that?

---

I don't know about that. There is a way you can make your camera focus with just the back button. On older Canons, you set it to the * button and on newer Canons you have a AF-ON button. I disable AF from the shutter button so I can focus/recompose. Also, so if a player hasn't moved from the focal range, I take my thumb off the focus button and just fire away. Especially good for baseball, as the batter is in the same position, but I use it for football a lot too.

quote:

---

3) Wow! After realizing the necessity to shoot most pictures vertically, I quickly realized the importance of having a battery grip. My hand was killing me trying to support the camera at a weird angle with my finger wrapped around the bottom hitting the shutter! Is Canon much better than 3rd party in this case? Also, would the grip that fits my 20D be compatible if I upgraded in the future?

---

I don't use 3rd party grips, so I can't tell you. A lot of photographers have found it easier to turn the body the opposite way so the shutter button is down. It is all preference. I never shoot without a grip.

quote:

---

My 28-75 actually worked pretty well. 28 was JUST wide enough when sitting close to get the entire athlete in frame. There were times when I was behind the team (baseline?) that more zoom would have been nice. I definitely see the advantage of a 1.8 aperture though. I occasionally would have motion blur and less noise in my shots would be nice.

---

Yeah, shooting manual would help. You will need 1/500th for the girls, but that won't be fast enough to get the ball sharp when spiked. Or their hands. But the face is all that really matters.

quote:

---

I'm confused how you would shoot a game like that with a prime lens? I was constantly zooming in and out to get different players in the frame properly. If you used a prime would you just sit far enough away to get the full athlete in frame and then crop the picture when you wanted athletes further away? Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong and you DON'T need to capture the entire body in the frame?

---

You go for different shots are different parts of the court.

What you do is you develop zones. Each zone gives you a different thing you want to shoot.

Full-Body Horizontal:


Full Body Vertical:


3/4 Body Vertical:


1/2 Body Horizontal


1/2 Body Vertical:




Headshot Vertical:



So you figure out what zone the player is, and adjust to it. That way you can switch from Full Horiz to Full Vert as they get closer, then again to 1/2 Horiz as they get closer. It takes some getting used to, but I shoot nearly everything with a prime lens. In fact, this year for football, 99% of my shots have been a 7D with a 300mm 2.8. Most games, I don't even carry anything else.

quote:

---

Nikon D5000 w/ AF-S VR Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED

or

Canon EOS Rebel T2i Digital SLR Camera w/ EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens

---

Neither lens is good. I prefer the Canon to the Nikon because not every Nikon lens will autofocus with that Nikon body. Every Canon EF or EF-S lens will work with that Canon body.

quote:

---

I have an opportunity to get a Canon 24-70mm L for a pretty good price. Should I ditch my Tamron 28-75 and get some cash for it since it's the same focal range, or should I just pick up the Canon lens anyway and keep the Tamron as a 'backup'?

---

Unless you have all your bases covered, I would probably sell it and get something else. Do you have a 70-200 2.8? How about a 17-40 4L or 16-35 2.8L? Macro lens? Prime lens for portraits like the 135mm 2.0 or 85mm 1.8? A couple of flashes?

Odd request, but do any you folks have an 85mm 1.8 I could borrow for a few days? I'd like to get a feel for it before dropping some cash on one.

If you can't find an 85mm to borrow, you could always rent one pretty cheaply and check it out for a while.

Thanks Random and GS!

I'll definitely shoot in manual next time. Given the stable lighting, it certainly makes sense and it wasn't until after the game I realized some shots were perfectly exposed but several were underexposed.

I had no idea about the light cycles - very interesting!

I did some reading online last week and discovered the benefit to changing my custom function 4 from the default. I have it set on option 3: AE/AF, no AE lock. Like you said, now I can focus with the back button and take a shot whenever I'm ready without risking the lens accidentally attempting to refocus and blurring my shot. It'll take some getting used to, but I definitely see the advantage and glad I expanded my knowledge on the subject.

Yeah, I'll probably go with a Canon grip at some point. Would it work for if/when I eventually upgrade bodies (assuming I don't get the tier that have built-in grips)?

That's an excellent explanation on the shooting zones, GS. I had never considered them before and they make a lot sense. I also see how a prime could still be versatile. You might add that gem to the OP.

Regarding Random's cropping suggestion - Yeah, I've been hesitant to crop any shots to improve composition, but I haven't made any prints so I guess I haven't considered it. I'll look at some of my better shots and see if they can be improved with cropping.


Thanks for all the advice guys!

24-70L comes in tomorrow (my first L). Pants are getting tight.

I have a chance to pick up a 40D body with a few extras in good shape, 28k clicks, for $550.

Same guy also has a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM Ultra Wide Angle Zoom Lens for $500 and a Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens for $350.

I'm interested in the 40D and 17-40mm, and could get both for under $1k.

As a motivated noob will this be a camera I can grow into or am I going to be too overwhelmed? Price seem okay?

That's a pretty good deal. Very nice equipment.

any thoughts on teh canon s95?

Everything I have read says the S95 will be a hell of a point and shoot.

excellent. thanks!

quote:

---

I hate the 18-200 lenses. They are slow and soft.

I like the 70-200mm 2.8 from Sigma, Tamron or Canon. The Tamron is probably a little sharper than the Sigma, but the Sigma focuses quicker. The Canon beats them both. If you don't need the 2.8, Canon's 70-200mm F/4 is very sharp and light.

---

Man, I'd love to get that 2.8, but it is a steep jump in price from the 4 to a 2.8. I was gonna try to keep this to 5-600$.

quote:

---

any thoughts on teh canon s95?

---

FWIW, a buddy of mine that normally shoots a D7000 got one over the weekend. He loves it and can't stop talking about how great it is.

The sigma 70-200 f/2.8 non-OS is ~800. It's about halfway between Canon's non-IS (~650) and IS (~1150) versions of the 70-200 f/4

What would you recommend for exterior and interior house shots? I've been looking at the Tamron 28-75, but a wide angle lens might work better on interior room shots.

Are you using a cropped sensor? I felt that the 28-75 wasn't quite wide enough for interior/exterior shots of buildings so I imagine houses would be the same way, I always felt that I needed to back up just a bit more if I wanted a lot in frame. I definitely prefer at least 18mm on the wide end for those uses.

I have a Canon 20D. I've borrowed a Tamron 10-24 lens, but I'm not liking the quality of the shots.

Right now I own the stock Canon 18-55 lens which I hate to use. So I could really use some recs on what to get. Not looking to spend a ton, but I'm willing to get multiple lenses if necessary.

I've seen the Tamron 24-75 recommended often, so I thought that might be a good one to get as an all around lens. Basically, I'm looking for a lens or two for everyday pics as well as interior/exterior home pics.

You might look at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8. Quite a bit better than the 18-55, and wider than the 28-75.

From what I've read (no personal experience), the Tamron 10-24 is probably the worst of the ultra-wides for cropped cameras. Sigma makes a 10-20mm that's slow, but has good IQ and is reasonably priced.

It kinda depends on the usage. A professional photographer shooting interiors is going to use a full-frame camera and either a tilt-shift lens or a prime like the 14mm 2.8L II or 24mm 1.4L II. They will put it on a tripod, stop it down a bit and use a long exposure.

For below 18mm on a cropped body, I would recommend (in order)

Canon 10-22mm EF-S
Tokina 11-16mm 2.8
Sigma 10-20mm 4-5.6

I'm new to this and wasn't aware of the differences in full-frame vs. cropped body. So the Canon 20D is a cropped body?

Thank you for the help and recs.

Yes. The cheapest used full-frame is the Canon 5D. It can be had for around a grand with no lens. The cheapest new full-frame body would be a Canon 5D Mark II or a Nikon D700. Both run around $2500.

I recently purchased the Canon 10-22, and highly recommend it for WA on a crop body. I had been renting one on a couple of occassions when I knew I would be using one, and liked it so much I went ahead and got one of my own, since I have been needing one more lately for various trips/events.

Now that Sigma makes the 50mm 1.8, would you recommend it over the Canon 50/1.8? The Sigma is about $150 more. I own the 70-200 2.8 by Sigma and really like the build. It looks like the Canon is the same kind of build as the 1.8 which is pretty weak!

I want/need a low-light lens for kids. I had the Canon 50/1.8 but it was damaged. Now that I am more comfortable with shooting, I can start splurging more!

I was on here awhile back asking about the Sig 30mm and, GSoup, you recommended it. However, I have decided to go with the 50mm range

[This message has been edited by caleblyn (edited 11/3/2010 4:05p).]

if youre gonna go out for an upgrade on the 50mm 1.8, id look at the 1.4s that canon(350) and sigma(500) have.

quote:

---

I hate the 18-200 lenses

---

Nikons 18-200VR is plenty sharp when used correctly.

As GS pointed out, the Nikon D5000 does not have a built in motor drive and will not auto-focus the Nikon 80-200/2.8 or the Sigma 70-200/2.8 (IIRC) as neither has a built in motor drive (double check that on the Sigma).

[This message has been edited by agracer (edited 11/3/2010 7:55p).]

quote:

---

if youre gonna go out for an upgrade on the 50mm 1.8, id look at the 1.4s that canon(350) and sigma(500) have.

---

Oh crap! I can't believe I just did that. I am going to repost...I meant I wanted the 1.4...ugh!

OKAY, LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN...


Now that Sigma makes the 50mm 1.4, would you recommend it over the Canon 50/1.4? The Sigma is about $150 more. I own the 70-200 2.8 by Sigma and really like the build. It looks like the Canon is the same kind of build as the 1.8 which is pretty weak!

I want/need a low-light lens for kids. I had the Canon 50/1.8 but it was damaged. Now that I am more comfortable with shooting, I can start splurging more!

I was on here awhile back asking about the Sig 30mm and, GSoup, you recommended it. However, I have decided to go with the 50mm range

quote:

---

Nikons 18-200VR is plenty sharp when used correctly.

---

Maybe when stopped down to 11. It isn't a lens that I would find acceptable. Also, I can't think of a single lens I would recommend that is less than 400mm and has a max aperture of over F/4.


Caleb: on the 50mm 1.4 lenses, I don't use them. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is pretty much villified, and the Sigma gets decent reviews. A lot of pros prefer the Sigma model. I'm holding out hope that Canon puts out a new 50mm 1.4 soon (it has been long rumored.)

I would probably get the Sigma based on reviews, but personally, I am holding out for a Canon one in 2011.

I've got the canon 50 f/1.4

It's much more solid than the f/1.8 version, but it's not 'L' build quality. In particular, manual focusing seems much less solid than something like the 85 f/1.8 or any of the L primes or zooms. You may not do it much, but a lot of times I like prefocusing in the general area of interest before autofocusing rather than making the lens hunt.

Also, autofocusing is slower and louder than an L lens, though still a bit better than the f/1.8. On the plus side, it's a lot smaller than the sigma 50mm. 58mm filter vs. 77mm filter I believe. I haven't used a Sigma 50 f/1.4, so I can't compare it directly, but it definitely sounds like something worth renting or borrowing to see how you like it.

I have the Canon 50mm 1.4...I upgraded from the 1.8. I like the Canon version a lot, mine is super sharp. No, it's not an L lens...but it does a great job for the price and its WAY better than the 1.8 as far as hunting for focus and the build of it.

I use my 50mm a lot, I prefer primes and indoors I go for the 50.