DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Do I need a monopod for an IS lens?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/16/2009 07:50:08 PM · #1
Those shots are great - I didn't get anything like that for sharpness or clarity.

Maybe I'll try a higher ISO next time:)

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by BJ:

Hi Everyone,

I got a couple of good shots I think but my primary problem was indeed focus. Very frustrating. Also, I used ISO 400 for most if not all of the shots I took and still they look noisy to me - should I have used a higher ISO? I thought 400 was fast enough for most action shots?


These are at ISO 1600. Without a VR lens and with a mono. You can judge for yourself the clarity - but the challenge shot has numerous comments regarding "no grain" which to me meant that it wasn't noisy enough.

03/16/2009 12:26:44 PM · #2
Originally posted by BJ:

Hi Everyone,

I got a couple of good shots I think but my primary problem was indeed focus. Very frustrating. Also, I used ISO 400 for most if not all of the shots I took and still they look noisy to me - should I have used a higher ISO? I thought 400 was fast enough for most action shots?


These are at ISO 1600. Without a VR lens and with a mono. You can judge for yourself the clarity - but the challenge shot has numerous comments regarding "no grain" which to me meant that it wasn't noisy enough.

03/16/2009 12:48:10 AM · #3
Thanks everyone,

now that I know more hopefully next time will be more successful with more "keepers". A good learning experience.

Thanks again:)
03/16/2009 12:39:37 AM · #4
Originally posted by vawendy:

One other thought--do you have the IS that has two modes? If so, you want to put it on the panning mode. I've heard that the old IS when panning doesn't work well.


Good point.
03/16/2009 12:36:40 AM · #5
yes it does - I left it on mode 1 - I think you are right - I think I should have switched to mode 2 for panning - I never even thought of that! thanks for pointing that out.

Originally posted by vawendy:

One other thought--do you have the IS that has two modes? If so, you want to put it on the panning mode. I've heard that the old IS when panning doesn't work well.
03/16/2009 12:31:46 AM · #6
One other thought--do you have the IS that has two modes? If so, you want to put it on the panning mode. I've heard that the old IS when panning doesn't work well.
03/16/2009 12:29:35 AM · #7
Originally posted by BJ:

I thought I would be fine too - I had the auto focus on. Some came out okay, but mostly the ones that came out better were the ones where I tried to predict the action, i.e, baserunner on 2nd, focus on 3rd base and wait for the runner to come into the shot. If I tried to follow the runner with the autofocus it usually missed and got the background in focus instead.

even the ones that seem in focus still seem grainy. could it be the filter I used? I used an inexpensive uv filter - or would that have nothing to do with it?



I'm not familiar with the Canon 350D focus system so I could not say. It is an older body so the focus system may not be fast enough and be more affected by the filter or panning. Sounds like you are doing the right thing by predicting the action yourself. I do that with birds when I can.
03/16/2009 12:28:58 AM · #8
Yes I think that's what I did.

Thanks for the tip.
03/16/2009 12:26:13 AM · #9
When I shoot baseball, I turn on AIservo, but I also keep it just on the center focus point and crop things later so they're not centered. when I tried putting on all focus points, it never guessed correctly.
03/16/2009 12:23:48 AM · #10
I thought I would be fine too - I had the auto focus on. Some came out okay, but mostly the ones that came out better were the ones where I tried to predict the action, i.e, baserunner on 2nd, focus on 3rd base and wait for the runner to come into the shot. If I tried to follow the runner with the autofocus it usually missed and got the background in focus instead.

even the ones that seem in focus still seem grainy. could it be the filter I used? I used an inexpensive uv filter - or would that have nothing to do with it?

Originally posted by jbsmithana:

Originally posted by BJ:

Hi,

I tried to keep the focal length under 200mm - the shutter speed averaged from 1000 to 1600 with ISO at 400.


With shutter speeds that high, over 1/1000, at 200mm you should have been golden! If focus was a problem maybe you needed to be on predictive focus setting (as used for moving subjects)? Did you choose a spot for focus and make sure it was on the subject? Or if the camera was choosing the focus point it likely was not catching the right subject.
03/16/2009 12:18:34 AM · #11
That's a great shot vawendy. thanks for posting the details on your other shots.

03/15/2009 11:54:59 PM · #12
Originally posted by BJ:

Hi,

I tried to keep the focal length under 200mm - the shutter speed averaged from 1000 to 1600 with ISO at 400.


With shutter speeds that high, over 1/1000, at 200mm you should have been golden! If focus was a problem maybe you needed to be on predictive focus setting (as used for moving subjects)? Did you choose a spot for focus and make sure it was on the subject? Or if the camera was choosing the focus point it likely was not catching the right subject.
03/15/2009 11:50:40 PM · #13
for the two shots I posted, ISO was 400, focal length was 150 for the softer one, and 80 for the clearer one. ap was f6.3 and both 1/1000 of second.

Here is a shot that I used ISO 800 at focal length 200mm. the shutter speed was actually only 1/200.



oops, forgot about the lens--it's a canon 75-300IS (actually, I don't remember if its the 70-300 or 75-300, whichever was the newer with the two types of IS.)

Message edited by author 2009-03-15 23:51:52.
03/15/2009 11:42:29 PM · #14
Hi,

I tried to keep the focal length under 200mm - the shutter speed averaged from 1000 to 1600 with ISO at 400.

03/15/2009 11:28:30 PM · #15
Originally posted by BJ:

Hi Everyone,

I got a couple of good shots I think but my primary problem was indeed focus. Very frustrating. Also, I used ISO 400 for most if not all of the shots I took and still they look noisy to me - should I have used a higher ISO? I thought 400 was fast enough for most action shots?

A good learning experience. John, I think you are right about learning focusing. I don't know what happened - I used the auto focus because I thought it would be fastest. Does anybody manually focus for sports shots? A lot of my shots the focus is on the background instead of the players.

Also, vawendy if you don't mind could you explain what type of lens you used and the focal lengths of your samples? I would really appreciate it:)

Thanks All,

bj


What was your focal length and shutter speeds when using ISO 400. You up the ISO only to get the shutter speed you think you need. If you are zoomed in to 300mm I'd say you need at least 1/500 to get decent action shots, even with a monopod which is highly recommended. If you end up with the right exposure then that will help keep the noise down but in any case the higher ISO noise can likely be cleaned.

Hope that helps.

Message edited by author 2009-03-15 23:29:19.
03/15/2009 11:17:57 PM · #16
Hi Everyone,

I got a couple of good shots I think but my primary problem was indeed focus. Very frustrating. Also, I used ISO 400 for most if not all of the shots I took and still they look noisy to me - should I have used a higher ISO? I thought 400 was fast enough for most action shots?

A good learning experience. John, I think you are right about learning focusing. I don't know what happened - I used the auto focus because I thought it would be fastest. Does anybody manually focus for sports shots? A lot of my shots the focus is on the background instead of the players.

Also, vawendy if you don't mind could you explain what type of lens you used and the focal lengths of your samples? I would really appreciate it:)

Thanks All,

bj
03/14/2009 09:46:09 PM · #17
This is an example of why I was thinking monopod. The first shot the focus is good, but is a it's a shorter focal length than the second shot. the second shot seems to have a softer focus. The focus is easy, since I new the steal was coming, so I focused on 2nd base. Same with the throw to first. So the only thing different seemed to be because of camera shake at the larger focal length...



Message edited by author 2009-03-14 21:46:38.
03/14/2009 09:32:48 PM · #18
Hi,

Just a big thank you for all you replies and information. It is really helpful.

I think I know now just what to do!

Thanks again,

bj
03/14/2009 03:37:10 PM · #19
Lots of good mechanical tips here. On the mental side. Know the game well and have the ability to anticipate the action will increase the ability to get sharp good action. Baseball/Softball getting the ball in the frame helps add to the action.
03/14/2009 03:11:32 PM · #20
If you are shooting daylight sports, your sharpness factor is going to be determined more by your focus methods than your shutter speed in most cases. It pays to learn how to use the AI Servo focus in a lot of cases...
03/14/2009 03:09:23 PM · #21
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by AP:

Shooting past 200mm it is definitely beneficial to have a monopod, as camera shake is amplified with higher focal lengths, even while shooting fast. Even with IS, the image will be sharper if you have IS and a steady mount. Also, it will help you frame up your shots and keep the camera trained on your frame while taking bursts, and you can keep the camera level as you swivel across different parts of the field. There really is no downside, especially since you can easily detach.


That's what I was thinking--I do a lot of little league baseball type photography, and even though I have a fast shutter speed, it's still not that clear on the action shots. I was actually thinking about trying a monopod this year.


I'd be interested in hearing whether it helps you too, Wendy. I shoot a fair number of sporting events (just my own kids) and never thought that a monopod would help, but I'll try anything to get sharper images!
03/14/2009 02:42:15 PM · #22
Originally posted by AP:

Shooting past 200mm it is definitely beneficial to have a monopod, as camera shake is amplified with higher focal lengths, even while shooting fast. Even with IS, the image will be sharper if you have IS and a steady mount. Also, it will help you frame up your shots and keep the camera trained on your frame while taking bursts, and you can keep the camera level as you swivel across different parts of the field. There really is no downside, especially since you can easily detach.


That's what I was thinking--I do a lot of little league baseball type photography, and even though I have a fast shutter speed, it's still not that clear on the action shots. I was actually thinking about trying a monopod this year.
03/14/2009 02:09:21 PM · #23
Originally posted by jmsetzler:

Baseball is about the only sport where I do use a monopod. IS won't help you in sports. IS will not provide a faster shutter speed. If you don't have enough light or a wide enough aperture to shoot fast shutter speeds, IS just won't give you anything extra.

IS is for hand held low light photography where the subjects aren't moving so much.


I was reading through this thread and wondering why nobody said this, thanks John. I shoot birds and it is the same thing. You need shutter speed and IS only helps at lower speeds. As for a monopod I always use one, mainly for weight issues and to keeping my arms from getting tired and causing more shake. It also helps if I do get in a situation where my shutter speed drops due to lower light, like in the shadows or dark backgrounds.

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 14:53:33.
03/14/2009 02:01:19 PM · #24
Baseball is about the only sport where I do use a monopod. IS won't help you in sports. IS will not provide a faster shutter speed. If you don't have enough light or a wide enough aperture to shoot fast shutter speeds, IS just won't give you anything extra.

IS is for hand held low light photography where the subjects aren't moving so much.
03/14/2009 01:55:52 PM · #25
Shooting past 200mm it is definitely beneficial to have a monopod, as camera shake is amplified with higher focal lengths, even while shooting fast. Even with IS, the image will be sharper if you have IS and a steady mount. Also, it will help you frame up your shots and keep the camera trained on your frame while taking bursts, and you can keep the camera level as you swivel across different parts of the field. There really is no downside, especially since you can easily detach.

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 13:57:11.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 09:08:33 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/29/2024 09:08:33 AM EDT.