Game Pics - IA vs Drake

Thank you both. I tried a couple a new vantage points and was happy they turned out so I may just revisit those spots again.
 
20645204_5hL2qN


This must be one of those "homer calls" that Ghost and the OP in that thread were talking about...:D

Edit: Picture Fail...:mad:
 
QUOTE=HawkeyeShane;643351]
20645204_5hL2qN


This must be one of those "homer calls" that Ghost and the OP in that thread were talking about...:D

Edit: Picture Fail...:mad:[/QUOTE]


Guess you mean this one:

CJM0018-S.jpg
 
Nice. I wish I had the light you have when we're taking pics of our daughter's team.

I really have to crank up the ISO for most games and use a slower shutter speed than I would like to. The f2.8 lens was a great purchase though.
 
Photohawk....can I ask you what type of lens you use? I am a dad taking youth pictures...and these are just excellent! Just wondered what it is by spec....Awesome!

Thanks for sharing!
 
Dunno what he is using, but I use a Tamron f2.8 70-200 with image stabilization. Way cheaper than then the Canon version and still takes good shots. I'll have to put some from this year in a flickr gallery and link them so you can get an idea what amateurs can do.
 
easterlakehawk said:
Photohawk....can I ask you what type of lens you use? I am a dad taking youth pictures...and these are just excellent! Just wondered what it is by spec....Awesome!

Thanks for sharing!
Click to expand...


The lower the aperture you can afford, the better off you will most likely be, hower this is also subject to the camera you are using. For example a Nikon D7000 came out a couple years after the D90 & D300 models so it's much better at compensating for low-light and allows for higher ISO values. This means for a D300 shooting ISO 800 or 1600 you may need a more expensive 28-75 or 80-200 f2.8 lens to obtain comparable results when using a D7000 that can bump the ISO to 1600 or 3200 without introducing a noticeable increase in noise. For the D7000, you may be able to get away with a less expensive 17-80 or 80-200 f4-5.6 lens. If you shoot with a Canon or some other model, you would just need to check comparable models.

If you are primarily shooting family stuff just for your own use, you may want to look into perhaps an off-brand lens such as Tamron vs Nikon as their glass is generally pretty good albeit slightly slower to focus but are much cheaper than the Nikon glass.

Clem
 
one more note...VR or Image Stabilization is certainly nice to have for all-around use and something I use while shooting family portraits occasionally in late afternoons/evenings, etc. but if you are talking in terms of just action shots I can't remember the last time I enabled the VR during a sporting event as most require shutter speeds of 200 or 250 which is more than fast enough for me to hand-hold and non-VR lenses are less expensive. If I had to choose where to spend my money, I'd much rather have an f2.8 non-VR lens than a f4-5.6 VR one any day.
 
Ahhhhh, Nikon guy. Agreed on the f2.8. I shoot in a lot middle school gyms with varying levles of light, some good, some not so good, and the f2.8 has made a HUGE difference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top