1st Soccer Photo for C&C and a technical question or 2

[mhackney]

After a couple of years away from photography, I just upgraded my D60 for a 40D. I had/have a pretty nice assortment of glass as you can see from my equipment list. I enjoy shooting my kid's soccer matches and use a Canon 70-200 IS USM L for this. The lighting the last few weekends has been harsh to say the least! I have been reading here and experimenting and would like to post this photo - which I consider to be one of the best of literally 1000s of shots I've taken over 6 games.

Here is the original processed from the RAW file processed in LightRoom, sharpened a bit and scaled to 800x1200 pixels, 200mm, IS on, Av, f/2.8, 1/1600s, center focus point, AI Servo AF, high speed continuous, ISO 200, shot from a monopod knealing, 1:14pm with a bright sunny sky and an occasional cloud passing over:

http://mhackney.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p794624430.jpg

Here is my crop (also scaled):

http://mhackney.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p987554587.jpg

And here is a closeup crop (100%) of just the head for my questions:

http://mhackney.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p891456343.jpg

So, I would appreciate any C&C please. This is my first time but please don't hold back. My intent is to improve! Any feedback on my shooting parameters appreciated. I would normally meter and shoot manual but with the constantly changing lighting I used Av and let the camera set the exposure.

Now for my technical questions:

This is really the first time I've used this lens opened up to f/2.8. Usually I shot at f/8 but I wanted to do a better job separating the player from the background.

1) In looking at the photos (all 400 of them) they appear very soft to me. Is this normal? As you can see from the full frame, the player was close and I was able to get the focus point right on his upper chest as he was running towards me. I do use a Hoya UV filter to protect the glass but don't think it is contributing to this.

2) In the head shot closeup, on the right side (his left shoulder) you can see just a bit of yellow CA. This appeared in a lot of the photos. I was shooting facing south (so sort of into the sun). It is not as pronounced on this shot but more so on others over several weekends and games.

I have another game today - another bright one. I am going to take my D60 and snap some shots just for a comparison.

Looking forward to any feedback!

Cheers,
Michael

[HaroldC3]

With that lens and camera you should be getting sharper pics. I may be wrong but they look underexposed. Typically I find my underexposed images are rarely, if ever, sharp.

What metering mode were you using?

[nickybegood1998]

I'm no professional but I shoot a lot of youth soccer. With those setting and your glass, I'm thinking your pics should be spot on. They do look a bit underexposed to me as well. When I underexpose, I get more noise and the sharpness will be lacking.

Karman

[mhackney]

Thanks folks. I used Evaluative Metering. Some of the highlights (ball, goal posts, etc) are pretty close to being blown.

I think today I will do some experiments during 1/2 time and do some braket expsoures, etc.

[stlcards]

It looks like maybe the autofocus is having a hard time doing its thing on the jersey since there is no real contrast in the middle of his chest. The ball and grass around him appears to be very sharp so I don't think it's a problem with the lens. Might want to try a different focus point when they wear these uni's. Maybe put it on his face? Not sure if this will help or not, but might be worth a try.

[mhackney]

What are others using for metering mode when shooting soccer - especially selections for diferent lighting conditions? My 2 boys are each on town and a club team. The town team is the maroon shown above. The club can either be bright white or dark blue. Or blue jersey/white shorts. I primarily focus on my teams but do snap shots of great plays or movement by the opponents.

cheers,
Michael

[mhackney]

Thanks stlcards, I'll give that a shot. As I mentioned above, my teams have very tough colors! The action is usually so fast that it is tough even keeping the focus point on the player!

[Adamora]

What are others using for metering mode when shooting soccer - especially selections for diferent lighting conditions? My 2 boys are each on town and a club team. The town team is the maroon shown above. The club can either be bright white or dark blue. Or blue jersey/white shorts. I primarily focus on my teams but do snap shots of great plays or movement by the opponents.

cheers,
Michael

i too want to know What metering modes to choose in certain situations

[George E.]

Did you select the central AF point? I was having trouble with plain uniforms and the central point (no contrast). I switched to using all the AF points and I get many more keepers. You should get better results; my 100-300 USM looks better than your post and it shouldn't.

[gazcoyle]

Switch the IS off, you dont need it with these shutter speeds and if using a monopod or tripod its recommended that its turned off anyway.

[superdiver]

A couple of things come to my mind...

1)If you look at the original picture, his right hand seems pretty sharp. That tells me I think that either the AF was slow and he moved OOF or that you just missed the focus or that it could be back focusing.

2)you cropped it a bit and it is magnifying the miss focus

3)you shot it at 200mm, and my 70-200 is a little soft at that point as are many others I read about on here.

4)since you are getting 1/1600 ss I probably would have closed my aperature to open the DOF and give me more fudge room for thses kinds of mistakes....

If you are getting as many missed shots as you say it could be the camera having problems focusing...?

[mhackney]

George E, I did use the center AF point only. So, you are using all 9 points and seem to get better results?

gazcoyle - I have not heard that, I will look in to it though. I would think that any extra stabilization would help. Does it adversely affect focus when on at these shutter speeds?

superdriver - this was just a representative photo from that shoot. Many of them are similarly soft. When the player is running right at me, I feel pretty confident that I can hold the AF point (center point only) on his chest to snap off the shot. I wanted to take advantage of my f/2.8 to get that soft background effect. I need to do some more experiments under more controlled conditions. I shot a game yesterday with players wearing white jerseys and I used manual mode after metering. Similar lightening conditions. This newest group did come out much better but I still feel like focus is not as sharp as many I see here with this lens.

Thanks all for the feedback. I do want to shoot my resolution chart over the focal range of this lens to see what I get. I am curious about turning off IS and will research that.

cheers,
Michael

[In2Photos]

George E, I did use the center AF point only. So, you are using all 9 points and seem to get better results?

gazcoyle - I have not heard that, I will look in to it though. I would think that any extra stabilization would help. Does it adversely affect focus when on at these shutter speeds?

superdriver - this was just a representative photo from that shoot. Many of them are similarly soft. When the player is running right at me, I feel pretty confident that I can hold the AF point (center point only) on his chest to snap off the shot. I wanted to take advantage of my f/2.8 to get that soft background effect. I need to do some more experiments under more controlled conditions. I shot a game yesterday with players wearing white jerseys and I used manual mode after metering. Similar lightening conditions. This newest group did come out much better but I still feel like focus is not as sharp as many I see here with this lens.

Thanks all for the feedback. I do want to shoot my resolution chart over the focal range of this lens to see what I get. I am curious about turning off IS and will research that.

cheers,
Michael
I am no IS expert but there are two types of IS. One is for normal mode and the other is for panning. Newer versions of IS can "detect" a monpod or tripod and will either turn IS off or switch to panning mode. If your version is th eolder version it might need to be off when used in conjunction with a pod.

[SuzyView]

I shoot with the 20D and 70-200 2.8 IS. I assume that's the lens you are using. Do you shoot Tv? I shoot Tv, 1/1000 sec, ISO 200, AI Servo with the 3.5m set on the lens. I also don't go all the way to 200, mainly do 150mm or so and then crop. Center focus only, on spot metering. I get tack sharp pictures with very little blur. But using the center focus is very tricky and doesn't work 100% of the time when the boys are running hard. But I get amazing shots. Your shot does look soft, sorry about that. And I don't ever use a tripod or monopod. The lens does the work for me.

Edit: Advice - play with the controls some more and don't give up!

[CarrieW]

These are very nice. I agree they look a little underexposed but you can fix that in PS and if they get a little grainy you can use neat image can't you?

[mhackney]

Thanks again folks. I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens. It is about years old. I do shoot in mode 1. I am shooting in Av or Manual (if the light allows it). Basically, following the suggestions of a lot of sports/soccer photographers whose work I respect. The idea is to take advantage of the wide open lens to isolate the players from the background. You can see that in this photo. Several weeks ago, I shot 2800 photos in Tv with shutter speeds of 1000+. Had the same sort of softness issues plus more focused backgrounds to boot. I was shooting with Evaluative Metering but yesterday I shot with spot and that worked better (when I wasn't in Manual).

I'll keep at it - I love a challenge!

[superdiver]

Sounds to me like either the lens is not focusing correctly or it is soft at the long end?

Other then that it sounds to me like you are doing things right...

[mhackney]

I was just looking at some of the other photos in that shoot. The one I posted was indeed at 200mm but about 30 seconds later I have a series at 78mm that are equally not quite focused crisply.

Those burgandy uniforms are such a pain! That color is way out of gamut for most photo printers too. Drives me crazy! Why couldn't my team have a nice red or blue or orange or ...

Michael

[mhackney]

Well, I did read my 70-200 IS manual (hard to believe I could find it after 5 years!) and it does indeed say to turn IS off on a tripod. I assume a monopod might be similar. I'll give that a shot later this week at a practice and see how it goes.

cheers,
Michael

[namasste]

Just to add my settings for soccer...I shoot with a 30D and a fairly cheap EF100-300 lens and can get still get some good results from that lens. AI Servo, all AF points, either spot or partial metering depending on just how bad the light is. I find that any type of evaluative metering will kill you outdoors since yo often find darker wooded areas along at least one border of the field and inevitably, one team is wearing dark and one light so it confuses the camera to no end.

[In2Photos]

Well, I did read my 70-200 IS manual (hard to believe I could find it after 5 years!) and it does indeed say to turn IS off on a tripod. I assume a monopod might be similar. I'll give that a shot later this week at a practice and see how it goes.

cheers,
Michael
That goes for the monopod as well. I bet that cleans up your shots pretty well. My 70-200 f/4 is super sharp when it locks on a good target. Only a few out of a series will look like the one you posted. Most turn out quite well.

[mhackney]

Thanks folks. I think I have enough to work with now to try, try again!

Michael

[gazcoyle]

Not sure i would be blaming the burgundy kit, these below are a similar colour anf focus is nailed.

http://www.thornhilltrojans.com/photos/a1.jpg

http://www.thornhilltrojans.com/photos/a2.jpg

http://www.thornhilltrojans.com/photos/a3.jpg

http://www.thornhilltrojans.com/photos/a4.jpg

[mhackney]

Thanks gazcoyle. Mind sharing exif with say, shot 1? I am not convinced that the color is the issue either. I am very anxiously waiting for Saturday when I can try what I learned this past Sunday (when they were wearing white uniforms). I also have a new Canon 100-400 L coming this week to try out.

[mhackney]

Interestingly, I got a PM last night from a forum member that was browsing for soccer techniques and immediately recognized these uniforms! Turns out, he is from my town and has kids wearing the same colors. He has also had a difficult time with soft images and noticed when his kids played on a club team with bright red uniforms, the sharpness is spot on. (I'll let him introduce himself if he'd like :) ). I do think that sing spot metering in Av or going manual made a big difference on Sunday (even though those were white uniforms). I also think that turning off IS will be interesting. The one difference with our town uniforms and the ones above are that ours are a solid field of burgandy - and it is not the glittery kind, more matte like. Perhaps those white contrasts help the AF figure out what to do. We'll figure it out one way or another though!

[In2Photos]

Interestingly, I got a PM last night from a forum member that was browsing for soccer techniques and immediately recognized these uniforms! Turns out, he is from my town and has kids wearing the same colors. He has also had a difficult time with soft images and noticed when his kids played on a club team with bright red uniforms, the sharpness is spot on. (I'll let him introduce himself if he'd like :) ). I do think that sing spot metering in Av or going manual made a big difference on Sunday (even though those were white uniforms). I also think that turning off IS will be interesting. The one difference with our town uniforms and the ones above are that ours are a solid field of burgandy - and it is not the glittery kind, more matte like. Perhaps those white contrasts help the AF figure out what to do. We'll figure it out one way or another though!
Even still the wrinkels in the uniform add contrast so the AF should still have the ability to lock on. I really believe the IS is your problem.

[superdiver]

I dont think its a color thing either. We have burgandy colors up here as well and they focus just fine. If the lens is soft at most of the mm the IS osunds like the most likely culpret. Those older ones would shake themseves when on a tripod...

[gazcoyle]

Thanks gazcoyle. Mind sharing exif with say, shot 1? I am not convinced that the color is the issue either. I am very anxiously waiting for Saturday when I can try what I learned this past Sunday (when they were wearing white uniforms). I also have a new Canon 100-400 L coming this week to try out.

ISO 160
Focal length 200mm
AV Mode
Shutter Speed 1/2000sec
Aperture F/2.8
Evaluative metering
Auto White balance
AI Servo
Single centre focus point

[dschach]

Thanks again folks. I do have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L lens. It is about years old. I do shoot in mode 1. I am shooting in Av or Manual (if the light allows it). Basically, following the suggestions of a lot of sports/soccer photographers whose work I respect. The idea is to take advantage of the wide open lens to isolate the players from the background. You can see that in this photo. Several weeks ago, I shot 2800 photos in Tv with shutter speeds of 1000+. Had the same sort of softness issues plus more focused backgrounds to boot. I was shooting with Evaluative Metering but yesterday I shot with spot and that worked better (when I wasn't in Manual).

I'll keep at it - I love a challenge!

Mode 1 IS is the problem. Either turn IS off or set it to mode 2 for panning. IS isn't necessary at the shutter speeds you're using.

[Brikwall]

What are others using for metering mode when shooting soccer - especially selections for diferent lighting conditions?

Personally, I tend to use centre-weighted metering almost exclusively, whether I'm shooting landscapes, portraits or sports (Yes, it's a hold-back to my film days). With sports, especially, your subject tends to fill the centre of the frame so I think that's where the metering emphasis should be placed. I'm not sure if this is the best way or not but, for me, I find it gives better overall results than evaluative metering.

[dmwierz]

These are very nice. I agree they look a little underexposed but you can fix that in PS and if they get a little grainy you can use neat image can't you?

Sorry, Carrie, but this image is out of focus, and no amount of post-processing can fix an OOF shot.

IS is not intended for moving subjects other than for panning items in the horizontal plane, and then under mode 2 only. Do a search on the topic as there was just an exhaustive discussion this week on when/if IS has a place in sports. And yes, turning it on can negatively impact AF speed.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/lens/index.html

FWIW, my highest number of keepers results from single point AF under AI Servo, and I have experimented with pretty much all the schemes.

If I were shooting the image above, I would have AF locked on his face (or his legs or even the vertical area between the maroon and white on his jersey) and then fired the shutter.

[mhackney]

All good feedback, thank you very much. I did spend time searching IS for sports and came to the same conclusion many pointed to above that I need to disable IS and try again. Soccer is a very active sport with players running every which way at a second's notice. I'm inclined to think that even mode 2 (panning) might be a challenge if the player is running straight towards me. Now I have some concrete things to try at the next game.

Cheers,
Michael

[mhackney]

Well, I shot 3 more games at a tournament today and I am much happier with the results. I made a number of changes:

1) shot manual mode after meetering on a white jersey or shorts.
2) no image stabilization

I was also using my new Canon EF 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L IS USM lens. I will shoot some with the 70-200mm tomorrow but I was too excited today to remember to switch!

Here's an example with minimal processing:
http://mhackney.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p198588883.jpg

100% crop of player's head:
http://mhackney.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p112613606.jpg

Thanks for all of the suggestions, they helped alot. Oh, and C&C on this image appreciated!

cheers,
Michael

[Vigants]

Please get back to us when you try the 70-200 again. I am experiencing similar 'soft' results and have been pulling my hair out.

I started shooting daughter's soccer 2 years ago with a 20D and a 70-300IS (IS off), but found that too often the early/late games challenged the lens (not enough light) so resold it and bought a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8. Very quickly gravitated to shooting Av wide open at 2.8 and adjusting ISO as low as possible to maintain 1/1000 SS. Love how small DOF field makes the primary subject 'pop'!

I also experiemented with center AF point versus all 9 and One Shot vs AI Servo vs AI Focus but never found a clear winner. Some days were better than others and generally life was happening too fast to really work out which was getting me more keepers.

As I got more experience my keeper ratio kept improving - mostly due to imporovements in planning and composition - the camera/lens were just a reliable workhorse along for the ride. Then, a few months ago I started to 'lose my touch' - fewer and fewer keepers until finally I knew it was not me - even shots of players who are not moving (waiting for a throw in) are really soft.

So now I need to figure out if it is the 20D or the Sigma lens. Kinda wish they were both one make so I could send them together to the same place . . .

Of course, this might be the excuse I need to justify a backup body and another long lens.

Thinking a used 10D as an inexpensive body and a Sigma 120-300 (also used probably) as the next lens . . . Comments?

[mhackney]

Vigants, I am just on my way out the door to my boys' soccer tournament today. It is very overcast today so I am going to start with the 70-200 using what I have learned this past few weeks. I'll report back tonight - if I am not too exhausted from a long day on the field!

I do find that center point focus is best for me. I follow the action closely through the viewfinder and keep the center point on the player's upper chest or face. Occasionally I'll miss and get the background or a closer player but not too often.

I shoot with my left eye open so I have a peripheral view of the entire field. A sports photographer friend taught me this and it took a little while to master. But it is great for following the ball on a kickoff and having the camera "there" at the landing spot when the players head or trap it. How do others here shoot? 1 eye, 2 eyes, no eyes!?

cheers,
Michael

[SuzyView]

Good luck and I think next weekend, I'm going to try 1/2000 sec just to see if it makes a difference for me as well.

[dmwierz]

Michael,

How do others here shoot? 1 eye, 2 eyes, no eyes!?

Glad to hear you're making progress. Shooting with 2 eyes is a very good idea. Those of us who are left eye dominant (like me) have had to learn to look through the viewfinder with their right eyes, but as you discovered, it helps a lot catching the action. Another added benefit is that you are safer on the sidelines because you can now see what's happening all around you.

I'm going to try 1/2000 sec just to see if it makes a difference for me as well.

Suzy - not sure what you mean by your comment. I'd strongly suggest shooting in Av mode and choosing the largest aperture possible then adjusting your ISO to obtain shutter speed. Are you shooting in Av or Tv?

[SuzyView]

Shooting Tv and not worrying about the other settings right now. The field is a lot larger than years past, so I'm trying to get used to the fast motion. I get about 25 keepers out of 100 now, so I'm very happy. When I mean keepers, I mean spot on mostly. But I am also adjusting all the settings. The main problem for me is distance from the field. Parents care not allowed 18 feet from the sidelines.

[superdiver]

I shoot with my left eye open so I have a peripheral view of the entire field.
Michael


I shot my first season of basketball and soccer with one eye. I had NO EXPERIENCE and too much pride to seek advice on a place like this.....LOL

By the end of that season my one eye was constantly twitching!...not a comforting sight for the patents of a dentists.....LOL...they didn't know if I couldnt see or if I was TRULY phsyco.....LMAO...

Then one day my 10 year old was using my gear while I was watching (somehow he talks me into splitting the games up into quarters or halves), anyway I noticed he was shooting with BOTH eyes. I tried it and havent changed since...no more twitching....LOL

[nickybegood1998]

I also have started using two eyes. I haven't perfected it yet but at least I can watch the game and kind of know where the soccer ball is going. I'm getting more of the action doing it this way instead of searching the field for the ball through the viewfinder.

Karman

[Vigants]

I do find that center point focus is best for me. I follow the action closely through the viewfinder and keep the center point on the player's upper chest or face. Occasionally I'll miss and get the background or a closer player but not too often.

Been mulling over this issue of center point versus full matrix AF. I think success rate has a lot to do with the length of the lens one uses and how far away the play is - if it is long enough that the primary subject substantailly fills the frame (i.e. 300mm shooting your own half of the field), then you are not likely to miss. If you are shooting with not enough reach (the far end of the field with 200mm) then it is that much harder to keep the center point on target, and maybe (not stating this as fact, just speculating) results would be improved using the whole matrix.

I do find that (when there is enough light) I find it easier to work with my 1.4x TC on than with the 70-200 alone. I did have a 2x TC but giving up 2 stops was too much and in general I was unhappy with the results so I sold it (I do not think it was a bad copy or anything, just not the best solution for me).

[Vigants]

As for 1 vs 2 eyes - I know I should use 2. I do try but that left eye just keeps closing.

I also have heard and read many times about "shooting low" and I have brought a stool several times, but always end up standing - too excited to sit quietly. Besides, with the average shot being 50-100 feet away a difference of 2' of camera elevation makes a difference of about 1 degree of shooting angle. I am curious whether folks really notice a difference?

Certainly with very young children on small fields it is important - but the kids are smaller and the shots a lot closer. Our 12/13 year olds are mostly around 5'.

[nickybegood1998]

Vigants....I shoot from the low position even for 9 year olds. I generally will either sit directly on the ground, on a soccer ball or in a chair. I find that standing just makes them look too small. From a sitting position, they really fill up the frame nicely and have such a presence in the picture.

Karman

[superdiver]

I have found that the two eye tech makes it much easier to follow basketball and volleyball which is much faster then soccer cuz of the smaller courts.

[mhackney]

I try to shoot at the level of the player's chests. For my 13 and 11 y/o's teams, that is usually on a chair or kneeling. I think it does make a significant effect in the composition. I started standing at the beginning of the season and as I learned from folks here, moved to a lower position. Immediatley the parents started telling me how much better the latest photos have been. This is especially true when the players are closer to you, I agree that across the other side of the field it makes little difference.

Also, SuzyView, I've found that if I approach the end line of the field carrying my equipment and not surrounded by the other parents, and if I do not cheer (too much!)during the game, I've never had a problem being allowed to maneuver to where I can get the best shots.

[Vigants]

I agree that the key to being allowed to shoot from behind the end line is to keep quiet and just shoot. Start making noise (cheering, coaching) and the ref will send you back to the sideline for sure.

I sent my body and lens off to their respective manufacturers today - a test I found on photo dot net confirmed that I have significant front focus (in AF) but not in MF, which suggests the body has the problem (I am told). But I got the same result with my lens on a friend's brand new Rebel XT - which suggests the lens. Maybe I am unlucky and have 2 problems simultaneously. Or maybe both bodies have front focus. We'll see.

When I get the gear back I'll definitely try sitting again. I'm fairly tall, so for the close shots it probably will make a significant difference.

On another topic, I am wondering if anyone here has tried using a flash and extender with high shutter speeds to add fill light to action shots. One of the frustrating things that seems to happen more often than it statistically should is that the "parent side" of the field is facing into the sun, so the shots all have the players' faces in shadow.

I've done some reading that suggests the newer flashes and digital bodies have overcome the 1/250s flash sync limitation and that with extenders you should be able to defeat those "face shadows" half way across the field.

Anyone tried this? I am in the market for a flash anyway (for indoor shooting) since when I went from film to digital my Speedlite was incompatible and went to eBay.

[david888lee]

a lot better! good job

[mhackney]

Vigants, there is another thread in this forum on using a flash for high school football games. It looked pretty interesting.

I've found that the refs will let me shoot from any of the 4 corner areas if I am courteous so it is possible to try to get the sun over my shoulder. Of course, since I am shooting my kid's teams, I do switch sides with the halves so 1/2 of the game is usually less than optimal.

Good luck with the lens and body! I think my 70-200 is fine given the photos I posted the other day and the 7 games under really poor lighting I shot over the 3day weekend. Sunday and Monday was raining and it was everything I could do to get decent shots. I also discovered NoiseNinja in the process and am very impressed.

And thanks David!

cheers,
Michael

[Manny Figueroa]

I have no experience on sports and I need to take some soccer pics. My lens is only a 28-200mm 3.8-5.6. Any advise

[Vigants]

I have no experience on sports and I need to take some soccer pics. My lens is only a 28-200mm 3.8-5.6. Any advise

I've been shooting soccer for a couple years but still learn every game. I shoot a 70-200 f2.8 on a 20D now but when I started I got lots of fine shots with a 70-300 f4-5.6. Just remember that the bigger the aperture the less depth of field, the more the annoying backgrounds are blurred and the more the player pops. When there is a lot of light I add a 1.4xTC (which brings me to f4) to get 280mm which helps. In an ideal world I'd have a 50-500 f1.0 but that lens doesn't exist and if it did I could never afford it. I do sometimes toy with upgrading to a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. A lot of people would say to get a 300 prime instead (and they may be right) but I like the zoom, plus I also use my lens for things other than soccer where 300mm would be just too long.

Does your camera have a Sports Mode? Yes? Don't use it. On my 20D that mode sets the ISO to 400 and so limits your shutter speed. You want to try and maintain a high shutter speed (I find that anything below 1/800 and I get motion blur, but faster is better) so I use aperture priority mode and keep the lens wide open. Bumping up to higher ISO will also help (I usually don't go higher than 800 because I do not currently have noise reduction sw, which I hear is quite good). I shoot from a monopod. IS is useless and if you are keeping the shutter speed up should not be necessary anyway.

Light is the big issue. Early morning games and evening games usually make me ditch the TC to keep the speed up. Noon games with direct overhead light often cause the players faces to be in shadow (looking down, at the ball). I'm planning to try out flash for fill one day soon.

You will find that the play always seems to be at the far end of the field :mad: but you need to be patient. If the game is lopsided then you can gravitate to the end with the action and do better. 200mm will often seem frustratingly short, but lots of pros make do with that length. When I can get away with it I shoot from behind the end-line and those are often the most captivating shots.

I follow the ball, because that is where the drama always is. Timing is everything - and that means anticipating. I've tried machine-gunning with my 20D and never get much luck with that - I just use single shot and keep stroking the shutter halfway to keep focus lock. Most say that you should use the center AF point only. I've tried that and tried using the full matrix and cannot honestly say that one has been more effective than the other for me. Sometimes the extra AF points screw up a shot and sometimes they save me from my own shortcomings. I think that as my skill increases I do better with single point AF.

During throw-ins and other stopages I take candid head shots - the players are into the game, so no cheesy smiles. ;) Don't forget the keepers! If you follow the ball, be warned that you will get lots of shots of the best players and maybe none of the weaker ones - so if you are a softie (I am :oops:) try and factor that in. The players are in uniform and after the shots are cropped nobody will be the wiser, so you can fill things out up front by snapping some shots during warm up.

Good luck!

[Vigants]

I have no experience on sports and I need to take some soccer pics. My lens is only a 28-200mm 3.8-5.6. Any advise

Just followed the link to your site - you already have taken some very nice shots! For young kids like that the fields are smaller and 200mm will not be too short at all.

[Vigants]

Camera and lens are on their way home.

Sigma says that the lens checked out perfectly.

Canon is doing a complete clean/lube/calibrate/firmware but has not given any indication whether there was a problem when they received it.

Must say that I was disappointed with Canon - they said, “send it in and we’ll check it out and send an estimate”. What they did was receive it, verify that it existed and send me a flat rate estimate ($210) before determining anything about the body. They also suggested that I send a lens in “so they can be calibrated together” - which resulted in a separate estimate for the lens ($100).

I called and told them that I didn’t even know that there was anything wrong with either item and I certainly was not going to pay them $310 to clean perfectly healthy equipment. They told me, “but that is how we can give free estimates”. Good grief.

Only after asking for a supervisor and explaining that I’d be wearing a Nikon hat within a week if they couldn’t show me more love than that did they agree to waive 2/3 of the fees.

What will be interesting is whether they actually provide feedback as to what they found (I asked them to and they promised this). I am worried I am going to get back a camera/lens combo that still doesn’t focus right.

I sent my body and lens off to their respective manufacturers today - a test I found on photo dot net confirmed that I have significant front focus (in AF) but not in MF, which suggests the body has the problem (I am told). But I got the same result with my lens on a friend's brand new Rebel XT - which suggests the lens. Maybe I am unlucky and have 2 problems simultaneously. Or maybe both bodies have front focus. We'll see.