Switching from 'portrait' to 'landscape' orientation

[danaitch]

Do any of you guys do this 'mid-play' during a football game? I've recently started shooting more in portrait orientation but sometimes when the play comes straight at me, I don't yet have the expertise/speed/skill to switch to my zoom lens/body without wasting too much time and as I don't switch orientation either, some shots are missed due to the wrong orientation of my camera body.

Can anyone help out with hints and tips for managing these situations?

I guess 'practice, practice, practice' is the answer, but I wouldn't be human if I didn't hope there might be a short cut or some hints too.

This image was shot at 1/2000th, 300mm, f2.8, ISO 640. It's underexposed, I know.

The crop below is roughly the 'bottom-half' of the photo (full-width) as I was keeping my centre AF point on the faces as much as possible. Like I said, had I been in landscape orientation, I'd have got a better photo (I hope). Sorry for the amateurish watermark.

Any help would be very gratefully received. :)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y56/daninblack/KnightsatBlitz-152.jpg

[dmwierz]

dan - don't panic. Yes, it's not unusual to switch from portrait (where I spend 90%+ of my time) to landscape "on the fly" . The "secret" is to use the tripod collar like you'll have on most mid-long telephoto lenses. I keep the knurled knob my tripod collars loose at all times unless I'm carrying my lens/camera, and this allows me to quickly twist the lens within the collar.

Does this answer your question?
Dennis

[danaitch]

It does, Dennis. It's just the thought of making a right hash of it that scares me! I'd hate to be watching an image recorded on the diagonal if I mess it up! :o

I usually keep my collar pretty loose, but I'm yet to take the plunge into mid-sequence rotation. I'll try soon.

I'm kind of re-assured that if someone of your ability and expertise can't give me a 'short-cut' (not that I really know what I was hoping to hear), then there probably isn't one.

Ta.

[bobbyz]

Someone with 300mm f2.8 IS mentioned that with collar loose there is a position where it will come off.

[dmwierz]

Someone with 300mm f2.8 IS mentioned that with collar loose there is a position where it will come off.

The only mid to large telephoto lens I've ever used where the collar can come off while the lens is attached to a camera was my Sigma 120-300, and even then the only way to remove the collar is to loosen and then PULL the knurled knob out - something that wouldn't normally happen in use (and never did in over 100,000 shots with this lens).

[Sledhed]

Someone with 300mm f2.8 IS mentioned that with collar loose there is a position where it will come off.

There is on the 300 but not on the 400. I also leave it loose on both lenses and shoot portrait most of the time. I've never had an issue with the ring coming off the 300.

[dmwierz]

There is on the 300 but not on the 400. I also leave it loose on both lenses and shoot portrait most of the time. I've never had an issue with the ring coming off the 300.

Chris - the collar can come off while the lens is attached to a camera body? Or is it like the 70-200, where you can align it just so, and slide it off from the back of the lens while the lens isn't attached to a body?

[Sledhed]

Dennis - It's just like the 70-200 collar, you have to have it aligned properly for it to come off the lens. It will not come off if there is a camera attached.

[bobbyz]

Dennis - It's just like the 70-200 collar, you have to have it aligned properly for it to come off the lens. It will not come off if there is a camera attached.

Good point. The way other posted said it (I need to dig the thread), it was that at proper position the lens collar will come off even with camera connected. I was surprised to hear that as I never have anything like this on my 500mmf 4 IS.