DSLR silly question... - DPChallenge Forums

05/07/2003 02:45:56 PM · #26

Unfortunately a long tele-lens is usually pretty expensive. I have had no experience with 3rd party long teles but they might be worth a look. I would avoid getting something like a 28-300 or 28-200 as the image quality is usually noticeably less than a zoom with a narrower range. I donâ��t think I would want to be stuck with a lens like the 100-400L IS (or 80-400 VR) or even a 300mm f/4 as my only lens. These are all great for wildlife but pretty useless for family photos and such unless you donâ��t mind extreme close-ups! A good lens to start out with for general-purpose use that wonâ��t break the bank would be the 28-135 IS or the new Nikon equivalent (though I have no idea what Nikon is going to charge for it) but neither will give you enough telephoto for much nature photography. I am guessing you would need at least two lenses. Thanks to the 1.5/6x crop factor on the d100/10d you donâ��t have to have the longest tele to get decent wildlife shots. A 300mm f/4 should turn out to be a wonderful lens for this purpose on one of those bodies. I know the Canon 300mm f/4 IS USM is WONDERFUL and can be had used for $900 in near-new condition. IS/VR are definitely something to consider in your telephoto lens purchasing decisions. This technology should make your shooting experience a lot more pleasurable and successful. I donâ��t believe Nikon currently offers the 300mm VR prime but they do offer the 80-400 VR zoom, which I have seen some great results from.

Greg

05/07/2003 02:56:54 PM · #27

You mentioned nature photography - again you'll need a resonablly long, expensive lens to get anything better than you currently have with your nikon.

I've got what ends up being about 450 mm equivalent on a 35mm camera and
it frankly isn't that great for sports/ nature. Better than the G2, yes but not a huge jump.

If you want reach, it'll cost money.

You also mention the PC price thing - the difference is digital cameras
are more like PCs were in the late 80s early 90s, where the price would fall and the spec would go up. These days PC prices have pretty much
stopped dropping, your spec goes up but the base cost stays the same.

An entry level DSLR two years ago was 3 or 4 grand. Last year it was about 2 grand ,this year $1500 and still falling. I would expect it
wont go much under $1000 for a while, but it'll get there pretty soon.
That $500 is a good lens, if you can wait 6 months or a year.

Otherwise expect to spend closer to $2500 to get a decent, useful system. Which is probably 2500 UKP the way the UK gets ripped off.

lamedos

Nikon Coolpix 5000

05/07/2003 03:00:37 PM · #28

thanks dadas.

I should also mention that I have no intention of getting rid of my 5000 which will suffuce for the closer stuff if I only start with a long lens on the DSLR. Part of my purchase decision on the 5000 was it's physical size. I wanted something that would get taken out and used without the hassle of a large SLR. That need will not go away. Even when I start to build up a decent range of lenses on a DSLR, the 5000 will always be my pocket camera.

lamedos

Nikon Coolpix 5000

05/07/2003 03:02:16 PM · #29

Originally posted by Gordon:

Otherwise expect to spend closer to $2500 to get a decent, useful system. Which is probably 2500 UKP the way the UK gets ripped off.

Got that right!!! :-(

Just another thought, a few people have mentioned that even a fairy modest telephoto won't be a huge improvement over the 5000. I may be being really thick here, but given that the 5000 only has an 85mm lens at full zoom, wouldn't even a 200mm (+ the chip multiplier thingy) be a huge improvement over what I have at the moment?

I'm not trying to talk myself into this here, In-fact, I have taken a lot of the advice on board and will probabaly wait a while,but I do want to try and understand all the pros and cons properly.

Message edited by author 2003-05-07 15:17:28.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

05/07/2003 04:51:57 PM · #30

On the 10D with the 300mm f/4 I have no problem doing all sorts of wildlife photography. I shoot a lot of wading birds and animals that are very skiddish and I must say that the 1.6x crop factor turns a 300mm lens into an excellent wildlife lens. To me a 480mm equiv. lens is a huge improvement over an 85mm equivalent lens.

Greg

magnetic9999

Canon EOS-20D

05/07/2003 05:04:34 PM · #31

OK, im going to go totally against the grain of everyone else in this post and say 'you can get phenomenal results, far and away above your 5000, in the realms of sports and wildlife with a cheap lens'.

i bought a 10d, and not being made of money i only have cheap (but decent) lenses for it. See, that conventional wisdom is totally dated. With a 10D you're only using the middle part of the lens which is the sharpest part anyway!

You're also getting these HUGE files that resample down really well even if they're soft at 100% - although I am actually able to get shots that are sharp looking even at 100% magnfication.

Last but not least, you have digital image processing on your side to help adjust contrast and sharpness (Photoshop). Back when it was 'you need the $1000 lens', it was because, with film, pretty much what you shot was you got.' Digital is far more flexible!

You're going to find that your technique is FAR more of a limiting factor than the sharpness of the lens.

300mm on a 10D is 480 mm. That's a 13x zoom! Believe me it will knock your socks off. It puts you right there in the middle of the action. The cheapest Canon 75-300 is only $169 new. Then don't forget the 3rd party offerings. You can get a lot of user feedback on different lenses all over the net. try epinions and photographyreview.com for starters.

all of my lenses are at the cheaper end of the scale, and I'm more than satisfied for now.

And yes, a 200mm (translating to a 320mm) lens is a HUUUUGE improvement in reach over 85 mm.

People are going to jump all over this and tell me I'm wrong, but all I'm doing is relaying my own experience, which is that 'cheap is GREAT!'

05/07/2003 05:05:33 PM · #32

Originally posted by lamedos:

Originally posted by Gordon:

Otherwise expect to spend closer to $2500 to get a decent, useful system. Which is probably 2500 UKP the way the UK gets ripped off.

Got that right!!! :-(

Just another thought, a few people have mentioned that even a fairy modest telephoto won't be a huge improvement over the 5000. I may be being really thick here, but given that the 5000 only has an 85mm lens at full zoom, wouldn't even a 200mm (+ the chip multiplier thingy) be a huge improvement over what I have at the moment?

I'm not trying to talk myself into this here, In-fact, I have taken a lot of the advice on board and will probabaly wait a while,but I do want to try and understand all the pros and cons properly.

It'll be an improvement. I just said it wouldn't be a huge improvement. Depends what your expectations are.
This page has two galleries. One taken with a G2, from the sidelines. The second lot taken with a D60 and a 70-200mm lens. Yes some of the G2 shots have been cropped. But still, the D60 + 200mm lens does not give a huge improvement over the cropped G2. This was a f4L lens (about $700) Note that a lot of the shots are still blurry because on this cloudy day I couldn't get a fast enough shutter speed, with a 1.4x extender on the lens (f5.6 @ ISO 400 wasn't fast enough in most cases)

I'm not claiming to be the world's best sports photographer. Yes I could have done a lot better with the focus, or I could have gotten a camera with a better focus system (the 10D isn't a whole lot better than
the D60, but at least it has more than 3 focus points - particularly if
you want to shoot in portrait orientation) but a 300mm lens is probably
the minimum you want and even then you don't get very close to the action. Its just worth making sure you have the right level of expectation. Sports and nature are about the two most extreme levels of equipment requirements for photography. You can do it without going to the extremes, but you won't get the quality of shots that you might expect. Nature photography you want reach, sports you want reach, low light performance and high speed. These all cost money.

You are going to be doing sports photography in the UK, not noted for the amount of bright sunny days you'll get to shoot on. You'll need something quite fast.

Message edited by author 2003-05-07 17:44:16.

05/07/2003 05:27:12 PM · #33

I agree with magnetic. I had a 75-300mm III non-usm lens that I picked up from B&H for a little over $100 used. On a 1.6x crop camera the results are very very good. You donâ��t need the most expensive glass to get good results. I would personally go with the 300mm prime but then again you are talking about a lens that costs many times more for the same reach and only 1 stop faster. The 300mm f/4 prime is, however, one of the sharpest lenses I have ever used. Sure you can get spectacular results from the CP5000 and G2â�¦ It all depends on what kind of shots you are going for. I get lots of shots with my 10D that I could never get with my G2 unless I got VERY lucky. I have a D60 and a 10D and the difference isnâ��t all that much. A used D60 and a 75-300 III is not a bad way to spend your money IMHO. It gets you started and I seriously doubt you will be disappointed with your results as long as you keep the fundamentals of photography in mind. Even if you buy the 1Ds with the 500mm f/4L IS you are not guaranteed good results, you still need photographic skill.

Greg

05/07/2003 09:24:08 PM · #34

Originally posted by dadas115:

How does the 75-300mm handle sports ?

05/08/2003 12:15:38 AM · #35

Depends on the sport and body

Greg

05/08/2003 02:16:11 AM · #36

The biggest advantage to a L lens is the following:

1. Much faster autofocus, a big plus in sports.
2. Image Stabilization (most L has some offering in this)
3. Low dispersion glass, less glare, less flare, and better contrast. it doesn't really matter which part of the lens you're using for this as the lens will produce better contrast and better VISUAL resolution (sharpness) due to the contrast. It also means better color rendition as well. The lens is also sharp at the widest open aperature, while consumer lensese will tend to be really soft at the widest open aperature and you'd need to stop down at least 2-3 stops to get good sharp photos.
4. Weather-sealed.

Also, if you're shooting primes, then the difference to me at least between L and non-L is pretty small. For zooms, L is no question better than non-L glass. You can adjust image all you want, but what you record is what you record on the sensor, film or not. You can get close results to an L lens (sharpness wise) by using F8 or above to shut down the aperature, but for sports shooting that's usually too tight of a constraint.

Whether it's worth the extra $1000 depends on the user. ONe thing is for certain: if you're planning on getting a good glass, it's best to save up the money to get the good glass rather than buying cheaper substitutes taht you will eventually sell anyway. For example, in the focal ranges of say 24-70 mm, there are several offerings:

1. The best - 24-70 mm L
2. 24-85 mm consumer lens
2. 28-135 mm IS consumer lens
3. 28-105 mm consumer lens
4. 28-90 mm lens or 28-85 mm lens (one of them is what came on the cheap Rebel ki)

most people will find #4 to be really not sufficient. Sure it's $90, but you might as well save up and get the 28-135 mm IS lens for $250 more and you'll be happier with it.

[quote=magnetic9999]OK, im going to go totally against the grain of everyone else in this post and say 'you can get phenomenal results, far and away above your 5000, in the realms of sports and wildlife with a cheap lens'.

i bought a 10d, and not being made of money i only have cheap (but decent) lenses for it. See, that conventional wisdom is totally dated. With a 10D you're only using the middle part of the lens which is the sharpest part anyway!

/quote]

05/08/2003 02:18:25 AM · #37

There is a 300mm F2.8 L IS prime now, FYI :) which makes it 3 stops less and can be handheld to 1/60 (3 stops from 1/300), that's a pretty big advantage, but you do pay big bucks for it!

Originally posted by dadas115:

05/08/2003 09:01:26 AM · #38

Originally posted by dadas115:

Depends on the sport and body

Greg

So the original poster was asking about field sports, like rugby. I just wonder how that non-USM lens handles trying to track people running around at the 300mm end. I'm assuming it is f5.6 at best and slow to focus ?

05/08/2003 10:56:05 AM · #39

Tony, I have the 300mm f/2.8L IS and it is great but it is also more than $3500. I don't think the original poster wants to spend this kind of money right now. The F/4 is 1/3 of the price, only 1 stop slower, a LOT lighter and smaller and the difference in sharpness is marginal. I see a lot of 300mm f/2.8Lâ��s in baseball stadiums but for outdoor field sports during the daytime the f/4 will be fine. Even f/5.6 will be fine during good weather.

Gordon, sometimes I shoot soccer games and usually there is plenty of light during a good day to shoot at f/11 and still have a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action. On a 1D or 10D the AF speed is fine for soccer with the 75-300 III non-USM. The 75-300mm III USM, which I also had, focuses almost at the exact same speed as the non-USM version (so I sold the USM and kept the AFD). The USM used in the 75-300 is the micro-USM, which isnâ��t all the great and the 75-300mm USM doesnâ��t even have FTM focusing. Also donâ��t forget that auto-focus is a fairly recent invention whereas people have been making sports photos for quite a while. Techniques such as zone focusing can be very helpful with getting pictures of fast-paced sports action.

Greg

05/08/2003 11:03:00 AM · #40

Originally posted by dadas115:

Gordon, sometimes I shoot soccer games and usually there is plenty of light during a good day to shoot at f/11 and still have a fast enough shutter speed to stop the action. On a 1D or 10D the AF speed is fine for soccer with the 75-300 III non-USM. The 75-300mm III USM, which I also had, focuses almost at the exact same speed as the non-USM version (so I sold the USM and kept the AFD). The USM used in the 75-300 is the micro-USM, which isnâ��t all the great and the 75-300mm USM doesnâ��t even have FTM focusing. Also donâ��t forget that auto-focus is a fairly recent invention whereas people have been making sports photos for quite a while. Techniques such as zone focusing can be very helpful with getting pictures of fast-paced sports action.

Greg

I agree on using manual focus - I basically gave up on using the AF - for two reasons - one lack of focus points (in portrait mode with a D60 you have essentially one - and 3 aren't much use either.

AF tracking modes seemed hard to use - though I'm sure that's just my lack of skill for tracking a moving subject accurately - zone AF would seem to make it a whole lot easier.

Also every game I've tried to shoot has been in overcast conditions (again much like what I've been used to in the UK. For those I was struggling to get enough light to stop the motion in the players so not a whole lot of depth of field.

I still feel I got more consistent results with my G2, just because of the more lax focus requirements - but that's probably all just user error

Message edited by author 2003-05-08 11:05:28.

05/08/2003 11:47:40 AM · #41

I know what you mean about overcast days. The nice thing about the 10D is that you still get decent picture quality even at ISO 800 and usable at ISO 1600. I donâ��t think I was very thrilled with anything over ISO 400 on the D60 but again on the D60 you can bump it up higher and run neatimage or something.

Greg

05/08/2003 01:24:30 PM · #42

I find AI servo mode to be really easy to use. AI focus mode is basically pointless as it's too slow when the subject moves and hesitant when the subject is not moving. :-)

I usually use single point autofocus, the center point. i find the auto-focus point selector to be really annoying as half of the shots will not be the focus point I wanted. The transportation shot was done with the AI servo mode @ 200 mm @ F4 with the 70-200mm L lens, the subject is far enough that everything is in focus.

70-200mm L F4 isn't bad at all outdoors. At ISO400 which has minimal noise, it is quite usuable even when the sun is blocked by clouds. I still can't get over how sharp this lens is at its widest aperature!!! I just got a 20-35 mm USM consumer lens and let me tell you, the difference is staggering. Even my 50mm @ F1.8 is sharper than 20-35 mm at 20mm at F3.5. Stopped down to F6, then it's fine :) That's ok though, as I plan on using the 20-35mm for landscape which will almost certainly be F8 or above anyway. Still, compare the results with the 70-200mm lens, you know what you paid for (my Flora entry as well as the waterlillies shots in my portfolio was shot with 70-200mm @ 200mm @ F4 with full resolution, the point where it autofocused on was PERFECTLY sharp and 2 inches away it's soft, it's perfect!)

05/08/2003 01:59:16 PM · #43

Originally posted by paganini:

I agree - center point is the most useful one. Unfortunatly that leads to lots of boringly centered sports shots.

the AI modes are fine for slowly moving objects, but really dont seem to help much for sports where the participants change direction rapidly, run towards and away from the camera etc.

Or it could well just be poor technique. I certainly need more practice.

05/08/2003 02:26:26 PM · #44

I think center point works fine for sport magazines shots :) Just look at Sports Illustrated basketball shots, nearly all are vertical shots, centerpoint, with the player running at the basket. The important thing is to FILL the frame if you're doing a center shot.

If you want an off center shot, a way to do this is to use custom functions and separate the focus button from the shutter so that you hold the focus button (on the 10D this is * button) and it'll continue to focus, you let it out and move to frame and press the shutter (gotta do it fast), and it should give you the composition you want depending on how fast the subject is moving.

05/08/2003 02:35:34 PM · #45

Originally posted by paganini:

yes, and now we are back to the original subject, that for field sports you probably want a 400mm or above lens. Certainly this is true for rugby, or australian rules football. These are expensive.

Trying to focus and reframe is a nightmare. For both running and football I basically had to switch to MF to get any decent results at all. With a longer lens center focusing would be possible, but you need a quick focusing lens that can track well (again back to the original point about it being expensive)

I don't know if you've tried it or not - people in parachutes are easy compared to tracking a ball game

Message edited by author 2003-05-08 14:36:01.

05/08/2003 03:47:42 PM · #46

For sports like football I usually see the pros with two bodies. One with a long lens (say the 400mm f/2.8) and another with something like the 70-200. The problem with a 400mm or greater lens is that when the action does get close to where you are standing you are out of luck. It seems that a cost-effective way to get around this would be to get a 100-400L or Sigma 50-500. You will need more light than you would for a fast prime, but I think that has already been addressed here. As far as the focus mode goes I find AI-focus to be very useful. AI-servo is great for something that is constantly moving, but will drive you nuts if you are trying to take pictures of static subjects. The only complaint I have about AI-focus mode is that sometimes it takes too long to engage and I have to refocus. Also sometimes it engages when I donâ��tâ�� want it to. It works to my liking about 80% of the time so I donâ��t have any real complaints. The best solution of all is to get a lens like the 300mm f/2.8 IS or the 400mm f/4 DO and use custom function 17 to use the lens AF stop button to switch between single shot mode and AI servo mode. The center focus point is the most sensitive one, but I donâ��t hesitate to register any of the other points. I havenâ��t had any problems doing this. The only thing that I donâ��t like about the 10Dâ��s AF system is that letting the camera select whichever points it wants is completely hit or miss. It only gets the one I want about 10% of the time it seems. I donâ��tâ�� have any problem at all using the AF point selector, to me it is pretty convenient to use after some practice.

Greg

05/08/2003 03:54:54 PM · #47

my complaint about 3, 5 or 7 point AF systems was not the interface or sensitivity, just that with a medium length (ie affordable) tele for sports, that the points aren't really where you want them to be.

people are vertical, hence you use portrait mode more, giving on the D60 one spot, dead center, or on the 10D 3 spots, along the middle, which seldom seem to be good for covering a moving game. The 3 are obviously better than the 1 option on the D60 but I could really quickly appreciate the need for something like a matrix focus system.

There are ways around all of these issues, but the original poster seemed to be very cost sensitive, so suggestions of fast primes or multiple bodies don't really appear to address the original point of the thread.

05/08/2003 04:02:39 PM · #48

Yeah, up close and personal it's harder. Basketball courts are easier, as you basically aim at the guy toward you and does it's job well (70-200mm is also more than sufficient at courtside).

On football games it's not so bad for action shots to be in the center of the frame, even if the frame is horizonal, as long as it fills up the frame :) I think in order for the shots to LOOK professional by the magazine standards, you almost have to get one of those 300mm lenses with a converter (F2.8 so that you can fit a 2x converter nicely).

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by paganini:
I think center point works fine for sport magazines shots :) Just look at Sports Illustrated basketball shots, nearly all are vertical shots, centerpoint, with the player running at the basket. The important thing is to FILL the frame if you're doing a center shot.

If you want an off center shot, a way to do this is to use custom functions and separate the focus button from the shutter so that you hold the focus button (on the 10D this is * button) and it'll continue to focus, you let it out and move to frame and press the shutter (gotta do it fast), and it should give you the composition you want depending on how fast the subject is moving.

yes, and now we are back to the original subject, that for field sports you probably want a 400mm or above lens. Certainly this is true for rugby, or australian rules football. These are expensive.

Trying to focus and reframe is a nightmare. For both running and football I basically had to switch to MF to get any decent results at all. With a longer lens center focusing would be possible, but you need a quick focusing lens that can track well (again back to the original point about it being expensive)

I don't know if you've tried it or not - people in parachutes are easy compared to tracking a ball game

05/08/2003 04:04:42 PM · #49

I don't think having more autofocus points will help. I think it depends on how they use the autofocus points. The most accurate is still the center point. And auto-select on the autofocus is a nightmare -- the camera doesn't know what you really want to focus on.

Now, EYE controlled autofocus (whatever your eye is tracking and the camera will use the nearest autofocus point) might be interesting (Elan 7E), wonder if it will make a comeback...

Originally posted by Gordon: