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

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Do I need a monopod for an IS lens?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/14/2009 10:56:18 AM · #1
Hi,

Am going to a baseball game tomorrow and am hoping to get some good shots with my Canon Rebel XT and Canon 70-300MM IS USM f/4-5.6 lens. Do I need a tripod or monopod or is the IS good enough? I won't be doing outfield shots I plan on trying for the infield or closer.

Thanks in advance - I will not be around the rest of the day but appreciate any thoughts!

bj
03/14/2009 10:58:13 AM · #2
The IS should be fine, it's pretty good on that lens. You should be able to shoot down to 1/50 with a fairly steady hand @ 300mm

eta. just to add, like others have said below, 1/50 is going to be too slow to stop the action for sports, you'd only go that low if you were trying to motion blur the players. Also, make sure you review your shots as you go and change your shutter speed if required to make sure your shots are as you want them.

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 12:25:50.
03/14/2009 10:59:35 AM · #3
I think that for sports photography you're going to need a decently fast shutter speed, and that means that you shouldn't need either a monopod or tripod, regardless of the IS.
03/14/2009 11:02:48 AM · #4
Originally posted by Bebe:

I think that for sports photography you're going to need a decently fast shutter speed, and that means that you shouldn't need either a monopod or tripod, regardless of the IS.


You shouldn't? Do you mean you should? I'm actually thinking of getting a monopod because I want the fast shutter speed...
03/14/2009 11:07:15 AM · #5
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by Bebe:

I think that for sports photography you're going to need a decently fast shutter speed, and that means that you shouldn't need either a monopod or tripod, regardless of the IS.


You shouldn't? Do you mean you should? I'm actually thinking of getting a monopod because I want the fast shutter speed...


The shutter speed is usually at least 1/80 on my sports shots, usually faster, so whether I'm using my IS lens or not I should be able to hand hold that. I don't use a tripod or monopod for sports.

I'm stumped by your question - how would getting a monopod help you with fast shutter speed?
03/14/2009 11:09:08 AM · #6
I've shot many softball tourneys. Shooting all day hand held, my arms got very tired. You may not need one, but it comes in handy.

edit; monopod, not tripod.

2nd edit; if you shoot down 1/80 you will not get any keepers, need the shutter speed up around 400 or better.

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 11:22:38.
03/14/2009 11:24:06 AM · #7
I've shot a lot of baseball. Unless you are shooting them standing there, you want a pretty fast shutter speed to capture the action. Typically, I try to keep it above 1/400, unless I am shooting a batter before he swings. If you want the ball in stop action, 1/1000 is good. I have shot with my 70-300 IS and my 100-400L IS. With both, a daylight game is required - dusk doesn't cut it. A monopod gets in the way of shooting unless 1. you have a lot of room to whip around in, 2. you don't move your camera around to follow the action. Also, the more you do it, the better you get. And, get used to keeping both eyes open - one in the camera, one watching the ball so you can capture the batter as he swings. hope that helps...
<these are just my opinions and are in no way posted to represent the end all be all of advice on sports shooting>
03/14/2009 12:27:22 PM · #8
Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by Bebe:

I think that for sports photography you're going to need a decently fast shutter speed, and that means that you shouldn't need either a monopod or tripod, regardless of the IS.


You shouldn't? Do you mean you should? I'm actually thinking of getting a monopod because I want the fast shutter speed...


You would only need a monopod for slower shutter speeds, the faster the shutter speed the less likely you will have camera shake
03/14/2009 01:30:17 PM · #9
The pros use one so should you! Look at any NFL game and you will see the sidelines lined with photogs using the monos. If anything else you will be at the long game for hours? and you will get tired of holding that canon of a lens for that long.

IMO
03/14/2009 01:32:43 PM · #10
With quick detach plates on the mono head you can have the best of both. Many monos are quite compact. Mine has 4 sections w/ quick release tabs. A monopod can also serve as a walking/support stick to help you with your "gear" load as well as provide a good poke to an errant dog, should one cross your path. Lots of reasons to have a monopod along. Steady shots are just one of them.

eta: mine is a Manfrotto 680 w/ a 3229 head.

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 13:36:23.
03/14/2009 01:55:52 PM · #11
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.
03/14/2009 02:01:19 PM · #12
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 02:09:21 PM · #13
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 02:42:15 PM · #14
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 03:09:23 PM · #15
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 03:11:32 PM · #16
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 03:37:10 PM · #17
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 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 09:46:09 PM · #19
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...
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/100000-104999/103142/120/773330.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/100000-104999/103142/120/773330.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/100000-104999/103142/120/773331.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/100000-104999/103142/120/773331.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Message edited by author 2009-03-14 21:46:38.
03/15/2009 11:17:57 PM · #20
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
03/15/2009 11:28:30 PM · #21
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 11:42:29 PM · #22
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 11:50:40 PM · #23
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.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/100000-104999/103142/120/773843.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/100000-104999/103142/120/773843.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

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 11:54:59 PM · #24
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 · #25
That's a great shot vawendy. thanks for posting the details on your other shots.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/08/2019 10:16:03 PM

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 © 2001-2019 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/08/2019 10:16:03 PM EST.