PDA

View Full Version : Swimming Invitational C&C PLEASE


kgauger30
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 18:55
So this was the first time we had shot swimming, and we LOVED it.. It was high energy and alot of fun. Big question is how are my pics? C&C wanted!



1.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_5566.jpg

2.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_5575.jpg

3.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_5590.jpg

4.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_5614.jpg

5.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_5655.jpg

6.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_5712.jpg

7.
http://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e115/kgauger30/IMG_6019.jpg

manutd101
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 19:08
Seem a little soft. The 75-300 is NOTORIOUS for that though.

JeffreyG
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 20:02
You did a nice job with the framing, exposure and action. I would agree with the soft assessment though....but I would call it a lot soft.

Are these resized for posting here? If so, did you run them through sharpening after resizing? I'm just guessing, but these are soft even for the 75-300.

This is how decent even a resized tiny image can look:

kgauger30
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 21:15
yes they are resized. I noticed how soft they were too after posting. they are not that soft full size.

I forgot that my photobucket is set to small images.. Maybe I will have to reload them. It shrunk them too much!! Arrggghhh

Darsk47
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 21:21
I think you need to be a little tighter. You obviously had deck access so you should be pulling right in on the swimmer. There's a lot of water you don't need like in 1-5-6.

The shots also seem to be cropped oddly. Did you use a traditional dimension or crop at will?

kgauger30
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 21:35
I was cropping at 8x10 that way they could get an 8 x 10 or crop how they want on smugmug. I had never shot swimming so I was unsure how to crop/ Plus with the lens I have noted above, it is hard to get sharp images zoomed in, that is why I am getting ready to get the 70-200 f2.8L!!!

JeffreyG
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 21:39
I was cropping at 8x10 that way they could get an 8 x 10 or crop how they want on smugmug. I had never shot swimming so I was unsure how to crop/ Plus with the lens I have noted above, it is hard to get sharp images zoomed in, that is why I am getting ready to get the 70-200 f2.8L!!!

I find myself shooting the 300/4 with and without a TC a lot more for sports than the 70-200/2.8, though I am using a FF camera. You might find the 300/4 native on a 1.6X body a good sports lens over the 70-200, at least for outdoor sports.

The swimming shot above was at 420mm and f/5.6 on FF, similar to what a 1.6X body would deliver at 300mm and f/4.

kgauger30
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 21:59
I am getting the 2x teleconverter with it also. I shoot lots of baseball and I think it will suit me well. It is hard to get a batter when you have fixed length and you are on the field, then swing around and try to get the first basemen. In my opinion at least. I would love to have one of those, but I think it is going to have to wait till we get more money come in, since it is not as versitle as the 70-200.. We wont be shooting any more swimming since we dont travel with them when our child is not on the team.

JeffreyG
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 22:06
I am getting the 2x teleconverter with it also. I shoot lots of baseball and I think it will suit me well. It is hard to get a batter when you have fixed length and you are on the field, then swing around and try to get the first basemen. In my opinion at least. I would love to have one of those, but I think it is going to have to wait till we get more money come in, since it is not as versitle as the 70-200.. We wont be shooting any more swimming since we dont travel with them when our child is not on the team.

I'd be worried that the 70-200 and a 2X TC will not be better than the 75-300.

Anecdotally, very few Canon lenses take the 2X TC very well. Most AF dog slow and lose a lot of IQ. Some supertelephoto users (300/2.8, 400/2.8, 500/4, 600/4) are happy with the 2X TC. Others are not.

Very few 70-200, 100-400, 300/4 and 400/5.6 users report happiness with the 2X TC.

eigga
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 23:03
Save your $$ on the 2x tele ... the 1.4 is worth it if you have the light.

Primes tend to have much better sharpness than zooms...the reason most pros use them. Using a zoom is convinent but sports screams for reach in most cases and for that you need primes.

I use the 300 for everything, including swimming and tee-ball

ex @ 300 with 1.3 crop
http://i239.photobucket.com/albums/ff66/mcgomez13/FOF623_6.jpg

Sfordphoto
7th of September 2008 (Sun), 23:15
Yes, they seem a bit soft. Were you using sufficient shutter speed?

ironbelle
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 00:13
I like the facial expression on #4. I noticed you used a 1/5000 shutter speed. 1/5000 seems too fast for swimming. I use 1/500 to 1/800 for boxing/MMA and that's plenty. Maybe shutter is way a bit too fast for these images?

kgauger30
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 07:40
I use AV on all my sports, maybe I should be doing something different? Maybe I should raise my f-stop on a sunny day?

kgauger30
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 07:51
I would love to have the 300 prime, but $4000 is just not in the budget right now. Maybe once we get a little bigger and our name gets out there more, I can get that one.

Big K
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 09:25
I second the comment about not getting the 2x converter. The extra reach it gives you is not worth the loss of sharp focus and more importantly, the loss of stops when shooting. Go with the 1.4X, it is much better with the 70-200, cheaper, and if you are getting the f/2.8 lens, will still let you shoot at a manageable f/4.

You might check out www.maxpreps.com for info on cropping. They have a very good (or did, I have not been there for a year or so) section that talks about cropping sizes. They seem to have a good model in place for determining the size that works best for a variety of reprint sizes. I don't recall what it is off the top of my head so don't want to quote you bad info.

I am guessing the soft issue is also related to your camera's AF speed or lack there of. There are so many things that can cause the AF to pick up the wrong point in swimming besides the fact you have 1/10 sec or less that they are visible out of the water. This is very challenging for your camera to process.

eigga
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 10:04
I understand the 300 2.8 is a big investment but the 300 4.0 is also a great lens to think about to compliment the 70-200, especially if you use two bodies!

I have not been happy with the 1.4 on my 70-200....I know some are but just not in my experience (real world results) JMO

If it was me I would put the $$ for the 1.4 to the side and save for the 300 4.0 instead. Looking at your site and galleries I think you would use the longer focal length a lot. Also I would suggest to use vertical MUCH more...Im addicted to vertical :)

JeffreyG
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 18:55
I would love to have the 300 prime, but $4000 is just not in the budget right now. Maybe once we get a little bigger and our name gets out there more, I can get that one.

Canon EF 300 1:4L IS USM can be gotten for about $1100 from places like B&H and Adorama. I think you are thinking of the EF 300 1:2.8L IS USM.

The 300/4 is cheaper than the 70-200/2.8L IS.

kgauger30
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 20:17
Canon EF 300 1:4L IS USM can be gotten for about $1100 from places like B&H and Adorama. I think you are thinking of the EF 300 1:2.8L IS USM.

The 300/4 is cheaper than the 70-200/2.8L IS.

Yes but I need the lower aperture for night football..

kgauger30
8th of September 2008 (Mon), 20:21
I understand the 300 2.8 is a big investment but the 300 4.0 is also a great lens to think about to compliment the 70-200, especially if you use two bodies!

I have not been happy with the 1.4 on my 70-200....I know some are but just not in my experience (real world results) JMO

If it was me I would put the $$ for the 1.4 to the side and save for the 300 4.0 instead. Looking at your site and galleries I think you would use the longer focal length a lot. Also I would suggest to use vertical MUCH more...Im addicted to vertical :)


I used to use vertical all the time, but now I have gotten out of alot of it for somethings. I try to think of collages, and some things I need vertical pictures for and some I need horizontal.

I only have one body for now.. But looks like we will be doing ALOT more things coming up.... So maybe that second body and 300 L will be in the budget soon???

Lane 4 Imaging
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 09:55
Soft and the 70-200 series normally delivers very sharp images. The 300 is an outstanding lens, but overkill for outdoor children's swimming.

WebMonkey
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 14:00
Hey is that a DQ on image #2, that girls team mats foot is in the pool, lol

kgauger30
4th of October 2008 (Sat), 17:56
Soft and the 70-200 series normally delivers very sharp images. The 300 is an outstanding lens, but overkill for outdoor children's swimming.


These wree taken with the 75-300 not the 70-200 L I didn't have that yet.