| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/20/2012 04:28:26 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
And one more question, I have been trying to figure out the best auto focusing technique for sports.
Manual for me is hit or miss with my eyes so I would much much rather not use that. But I seem to miss focus sometimes when shooting in bursts. Should I be doing something different than what I have already been doing? |
Have you considered using a KatzEye? I'm seriously considering grabbing one to try, since I have issues manually focusing accurately with really shallow DOF on fast lenses. |
|
|
|
09/20/2012 04:33:47 PM · #127 |
there are two keys: always be shooting and pay attention to what you've shot. figure out why the stuff you get right is right and know why the stuff you got wrong is wrong. it will take literally 1000's of hours of shooting to get to a point of absolute consistency. equipment helps, but not as much as experience and practical experimentation.
Originally posted by matt0:
You have to know your camera like another hand. |
+1
|
|
|
|
09/20/2012 08:51:36 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Skip:
figure out why the stuff you get right is right and know why the stuff you got wrong is wrong. |
I think this is going to be my biggest task to be honest. Learning the camera will come. Learning what makes the photo good or bad is an entirely different thing...
|
|
|
|
09/21/2012 07:54:31 PM · #129 |
Been looking a lot at new glass... (For when I have the money of course)
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 = Price: $769.00
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 = Price: $2,396.95
Is there THAT much of a difference between the two? I mean, that's a pretty big difference in price. Is there that much in quality too? |
|
|
|
09/21/2012 08:07:47 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Originally posted by Skip:
figure out why the stuff you get right is right and know why the stuff you got wrong is wrong. |
I think this is going to be my biggest task to be honest. Learning the camera will come. Learning what makes the photo good or bad is an entirely different thing... |
I only read the first and last posts, so I'm probably repeating. :)
1. Congrats!!!!!
2. Learn from others as well as yourself. When your shots don't work, check out the experts and figure out what they did that was different from what you did.
|
|
|
|
09/21/2012 10:23:17 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Been looking a lot at new glass... (For when I have the money of course)
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 = Price: $769.00
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 = Price: $2,396.95
Is there THAT much of a difference between the two? I mean, that's a pretty big difference in price. Is there that much in quality too? |
I just sat here and read your whole thread! I really see improvements from your first shots to your recent ones.
I don't know how much this will help because 1. I'm not a sports photographer (although I'd like to give it a shot, just for fun), and 2. I have Canon gear, but I have the Canon version of the Tamron lens, and I like it. I kind of wish it had image stabilization, but if you're using a tripod, that wouldn't matter anyway. :) |
|
|
|
09/21/2012 10:38:42 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Been looking a lot at new glass... (For when I have the money of course)
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 = Price: $769.00
Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 = Price: $2,396.95
Is there THAT much of a difference between the two? I mean, that's a pretty big difference in price. Is there that much in quality too? |
Tamron's have slower AF typically, and specifically in this case.
Originally posted by DPReview:
"This lens features a built-in motor for autofocus on the Nikon and Canon mounts, while the Pentax and Sony variants will couple with the camera body's screw-drive system. The AF motor is unfortunately not of the ultrasonic type, but a simple DC micro motor, and is distinctly the weakest link in the package (on our Canon mount sample at least). Autofocusing on a static object is generally just fine in decent light, but in even moderately low light AF becomes decidedly slow, especially in comparison to the Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS USM on the same body. Continuous AF performance for moving subjects is also disappointing; it's OK for relatively undemanding situations, such as distant subjects moving at a relatively constant speed, but the moment the subject starts moving randomly or at any great pace, the focus motor really struggles to keep up. This lens wouldn't therefore be my first choice for shooting sports and action work (or even simply children running around in the garden).
The motor is also noticeably louder than on competing lenses, so can be especially intrusive when the lens fails to lock focus first time, and starts hunting backwards and forwards through the distance range. This is a sure-fire way to disturb sensitive subjects, be they shy wildlife or guests at a wedding; and there's no focus range limiter switch to minimize hunting either. Finally autofocus consistency seems a bit hit-and-miss; we'll deal with this in more detail later in the review."
//www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/tamron_70-200_2p8_c16/3
|
Consider an 80-200 AF-S. You can find them in great condition for a price that is much more in your world. I use mine to shoot all sorts of moving stuff. KEH 80-200 AF-S for sale Built like a tank, too.
ETA: They also have an EX+ and a LN- for sale, as well.
Message edited by author 2012-09-21 22:42:20. |
|
|
|
09/22/2012 11:50:28 PM · #133 |
Holy crap... Golf is hard to get good shots of...
Faces are covered by arms just about every time!
Anyways... This is the best one I in my opinion that I got.
Image
P.s. - I will respond to the lens stuff after I get more than 5 minutes to think.
You guys are amazing. Thanks soooo much! :) |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 12:34:02 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Holy crap... Golf is hard to get good shots of...
Faces are covered by arms just about every time!
Anyways... This is the best one I in my opinion that I got.
Image
P.s. - I will respond to the lens stuff after I get more than 5 minutes to think.
You guys are amazing. Thanks soooo much! :) |
Great image marko love the bokeh in this
Message edited by author 2012-09-23 00:34:50. |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 02:36:31 PM · #135 |
I'm trying to get the school to go along with me on this... But here is my thought. I want to get one big lump sum at the end of the semester. This way I don't get tempted to spend it. And use that for new glass.
I don't know how much money I will have but it will be a BIG step in the right direction.
As for the lens I want. Well... I have quite some time to think about that. I looked at the 80-200mm f/2.8 that was suggested. Looks good. And built like a tank is what I like.
Thanks again for all the help. :) |
|
|
|
09/23/2012 11:46:08 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
I'm trying to get the school to go along with me on this... But here is my thought. I want to get one big lump sum at the end of the semester. This way I don't get tempted to spend it. And use that for new glass.
I don't know how much money I will have but it will be a BIG step in the right direction.
As for the lens I want. Well... I have quite some time to think about that. I looked at the 80-200mm f/2.8 that was suggested. Looks good. And built like a tank is what I like.
Thanks again for all the help. :) |
Since we were talking about a grip before.... this is one of those lenses that feels 100 times better with a grip. The weight at the back really helps to balance the bulk of that lens. No matter what though, you'll have to get accustomed to quite a bit more weight. The lens itself weighs 10 oz more than your entire current set up with the 18-105 & camera. |
|
|
|
09/24/2012 12:24:33 AM · #137 |
I don't mind weight so much. It's about comfort. I love the grip I got. (Nikon brand you suggested). It makes shooting so much less tiresome on my fingers. It's awesome! Plus I have access to a monopod if I really get a heavy lens. (The school has one that they said if I ever need one I can rent out for the night).
ETA typo...
Message edited by author 2012-09-24 00:25:02. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 10:20:32 AM · #138 |
The Sun Conference Website!
Just got an last night from the guy who I give my photos to and he said that he gave my photo to the Sun Conference website and it was added to their home page! Slapped with my watermark and everything! :D
And yeah, I am getting a little bonus for it... (Not much but it is worth it to see it there). He sent it to NIAI.org too, but they haven't updated their page yet. If I get it there too, I am gunna be stoked! :D |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 10:21:59 AM · #139 |
| Congrats (you should look for a more decent watermark, though) |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 10:27:47 AM · #140 |
I know... It hasn't really been on the top of my list of things to do...
I'm TERRIBLE with watermarks... I don't know what will look good with every photo... |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 10:35:36 AM · #141 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
I know... It hasn't really been on the top of my list of things to do...
I'm TERRIBLE with watermarks... I don't know what will look good with every photo... |
No watermark looks awesome everywhere. I wrestled with this for a long time. I only watermark images geared towards the highschool/university crowd. Everything else on my website is devoid of them. |
|
|
|
10/01/2012 01:50:37 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by mbrutus2009:
Holy crap... Golf is hard to get good shots of...
Faces are covered by arms just about every time!
Anyways... This is the best one I in my opinion that I got.
Image |
That IS a good one ...
I've shot 3-4 charity golf tournaments, and I've usually try to time the shots for the point of impact rather than at the top of the backswing, sometimes from behind, but lately more often from the side (in front as they face the ball on the tee). It eliminates the problem with the arms covering the face, and catching the ball in the frame lends even more of a sense of action. As a bonus, from that angle ALL the drives look like they're right down the middle of the fairway, and the golfer will know for certain if they kept their head down ... ;-)
Congratulations on the soccer picture!
Message edited by author 2012-10-01 13:51:13. |
|
|
|
10/14/2012 12:03:18 PM · #143 |
Hey everyone! Haven't updated this recently so here it is.
Starting to get close to basketball season (REALLY EXCITED for this). I did the basketball brochure photos (the ones that will be used for their team picture as well as the roster thing you get when you walk into the door at games). My favorite from that. I thought they came out really cool especially since I only used the lighting that was filling the room and no extra lights were used. I did the "Side-Out Foundation̢۪s Dig Pink" volleyball match last night for my school and that was a lot of fun. I'll post a photo or two from that when I get the chance.
Anyways, that's the most recent update.
P.s. - I still can't thank you guys enough for all the helpful tips and tricks! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 08:53:51 AM EDT.
