Lacrosse with Canon T1i

[clarence]

My neighbor asked me to take some pictures of his son's U13 lacrosse team.

This was the first lacrosse game I've ever watched, much less shot. Great sport! But it seems like the players are always facing the wrong direction 95% of the time. :D

Overcast day... on/off drizzle. Killed the colors, but at least I didn't have harsh shadows to overcome. Oh well, I had a lot of fun and I think my neighbor will be pleased with these pictures of his son playing, even though they lost this game.

Canon Rebel T1i/500D, 100-400mm, Av mode, AI Servo, back-button focus, -1/3 exposure compensation, half handheld with IS on, half on monopod with IS off...

1.
http://crtforum.com/img/2009-05-16_2555.JPG

2.
http://crtforum.com/img/2009-05-16_3092.JPG

3.
http://crtforum.com/img/2009-05-16_3326.JPG

4.
http://crtforum.com/img/2009-05-16_3515.JPG

[jjc3201]

I've shot a fair number of youth lacrosse games with the 100-400 also—looks like you caught the action pretty well. My one suggestion would be to frame vertically more. Lacrosse players are a very vertical subject, and the closer you cut the frame, the more space the action takes up. Don't be afraid to use the 400mm end of the lense either.

[clarence]

Thanks J.

I have a few vertical shots too...

5.
http://crtforum.com/img/lax3141.jpg

6.
http://crtforum.com/img/lax3355.jpg

7.
http://crtforum.com/img/lax3489.jpg

8.
http://crtforum.com/img/lax3539.jpg

I'd guess maybe 75% of my shots ended up horizontal... probably since I used a monopod for half the game.

[Tarzanman]

Lacrosse and Loudon jerseys?

That's got to be Virginia... am I right?

[cstewart]

My first reaction is why -1/3 exposure compensation? For my outdoor baseball, overcast or not, I am always usually on the plus side for this to get better exposure on faces under caps and keep things brighter. Other than that the captures look good, except for #1 which would be an in camera delete for me (no faces, no obvious "action"...I suspect this is a "face-off (do they still do these in lacrosse), but it just looks like both players have fallen).

[clarence]

That's got to be Virginia... am I right?
Yep.

My first reaction is why -1/3 exposure compensation?)
The T1i seems to overexpose the whites until I click it down -1/3 of a stop. I've just left it at -1/3. Since this day was overcast and drizzly, I could've bumped it back up to 0.

the captures look good, except for #1 which would be an in camera delete for me (no faces, no obvious "action"...I suspect this is a "face-off (do they still do these in lacrosse), but it just looks like both players have fallen).

Yep... that was a "face off". I was inspired by a NCAA face-off by a pro photographer on another forum. I rarely do "in camera deletes"... I just wait until I get home. If I deleted all of the shots that weren't deemed keepable by pro photographers, I'd come home with empty memory cards. :D I almost deleted #1... no faces, no ball, barely even a jersey number. But I liked the grass kicked up on the left. And since it was the opening face-off of the game, I figured it might help the sequence. Unfortunately, this was the best of the face-offs that I captured.

[SRF34]

I'd guess maybe 75% of my shots ended up horizontal... probably since I used a monopod for half the game.

Clarence

Unless I am missing something, attach your monopod to the lens, not the camera body and you can then rotate 90 degrees

Peter

[clarence]

Clarence

Unless I am missing something, attach your monopod to the lens, not the camera body and you can then rotate 90 degrees

Peter

Yes, the monopod was attached to the lens, not the camera body. I just never messed with loosening the mount ring to let it rotate from landscape to portrait. So I left it in landscape while the monopod was attached.

Actually, since I'm sitting on the ground, the monopod is fully collapsed. So at one point I actually rotated the camera to vertical/portrait orientation with the monopod attached... i.e., with the monopod pointing out to my right... parallel with the ground. I bet that would've made a few giggles if the photographer on the other sideline posted a shot of me doing that.... "Hey, check out this noob" :D

The other thing that's throwing me off is I've added a grip since the T1i is much smaller than the 40D I was used to. So I'm not used to having that 2nd shutter button, most of the time I forgot that it was there. So I was still doing the contortionist wrist action to reach around to the primary shutter button.

1) For anybody else that uses the 100-400 on a 'pod, do you just leave the mounting ring loose so you can freely spin the camera from Horizontal to Vertical orientation? Or do you loosen and retighten each time your switch between H to V?

2) When using the 100-400 on a monopod, does everyone turn IS off?

3) When handholding the 100-400, at what SS do you find fast enough to leave IS off?

[SRF34]

Clarence

I lock the ring mainly because I am 95% shooting vertical and it increases my ability at keeping my horizons straight (its still a mono so you will still have to adjust for some horizons.)

If you are shooting sports, your shutter should be fast enough that you wont require IS, handheld or on a pod.

Peter

[clarence]

I lock the ring mainly because I am 95% shooting vertical and it increases my ability at keeping my horizons straight

Interesting point. I'll definitely try a lot more vertical for their last game next weekend.

I think part of the issue is that I don't know the game of lacrosse... this was the first game I've ever seen. But in football, I can read the QB's eyes, find the open receivers, etc, so I have a subliminal lead on where to expect the next shot.

But since lacrosse was new to me, I reverted to just following the ball though the viewfinder in a relatively wide angle (if you can call 250mm a wide angle :D ) as if watching it on TV. Then while panning with the action, I'd follow a mental checklist: Ball... wait for the Face... Focus... CLICK.

If you are shooting sports, your shutter should be fast enough that you wont require IS, handheld or on a pod.

Yep... I try to keep SS faster than 1/1000", so I figured that was well beyond IS, especially since IS on the 100-400 seems a lot slower to spin up than on my 70-200.

I went back and checked EXIF...

1.) 1/1000", f/5, 250mm, ISO800
2.) 1/1000", f/5, 250mm, ISO800
3.) 1/1250", f/5, 220mm, ISO800
4.) 1/1600", f/5, 170mm, ISO800

5.) 1/1600", f/5, 235mm, ISO800
6.) 1/1000", f/5, 285mm, ISO800
7.) 1/1600", f/5, 235mm, ISO800
8.) 1/1250", f/5, 275mm, ISO800

[tfizzle]

ISO noise levels are annoying and they are soft.

But you capture the action well. Get a xxd series in your hands and some post process skills and they'd be great.

[cstewart]

1) For anybody else that uses the 100-400 on a 'pod, do you just leave the mounting ring loose so you can freely spin the camera from Horizontal to Vertical orientation? Or do you loosen and retighten each time your switch between H to V?

2) When using the 100-400 on a monopod, does everyone turn IS off?

3) When handholding the 100-400, at what SS do you find fast enough to leave IS off?

#1 - Loosen ring and rotate camera only. With the grip and second shutter button on my 40D, this is near effortless and I can switch very quickly as needed. I do not retighten, but leave tension such that I can rotate freely but that it stays put if I let go of body.

#2 and 3 - Since you want to have shutter speeds at 1/400 (minimum for many sports) or much higher for sports action (your shots were at 1/1000 and up), your IS will not provide any benefit at these speeds. IS is good for low light, low shutter speed photos where you need a bit more stability when hand holding...art shots, landscapes, architecture, etc. I leave my IS off for sports. Otherwise all it does is use up battery life when it is not needed.

[clarence]

ISO noise levels are annoying and they are soft.

Get a xxd series in your hands

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it must be the photographer and not the equipment... I also have a 40D and the pictures from this T1i are as sharp as what I was able to get from the 40D.

[beauch1322]

Did you try the video feature on it for the lacrosse game?

[clarence]

No. My few attempts at video with the T1i/500D have been a huge disappointment so far.

For one thing, IMHO, you absolutely need a tripod.

Second, with video on the T1i/500D (and the 5D Mark II) there is no dynamic AF. So you need to pre-focus before you start recording. You can do this manually, or you can use face detection or normal focus point AF. But once you start recording, if your subject moves, the AF doesn't track the subject. So you either have to adjust focus manually (MF), or you have to press the AF button and the AF will spend a couple of seconds hunting... blur past the subject, then blur in front of the subject... repeat until AF locks on. Repeat if your subject moves again.

Third, you can't choose your aperture for video. So if you want a big DoF so the subject stays in focus longer, you can't. Or if you want a razor-thin DoF for that cool artsy look... you can't. Well, there is a work-around... If you buy an old MF lens (e.g. from the 60's and 70's) with a manual aperture lever, then you can use that (with a cheap ebay adapter).

Fourth, the T1i only has a tiny mono built-in mic. No external jack for stereo or surround sound (the 5D Mark II has an external mic jack). No wind screen, so wind noise is horrible. And you hear every button click and lens adjustment... which is constant.

[tfizzle]

Unfortunately, I'm afraid it must be the photographer and not the equipment... I also have a 40D and the pictures from this T1i are as sharp as what I was able to get from the 40D.


Sorry, didn't pay attention to your sig. Hmmm, not sure what to tell you...is the 100-400 softer than your L glass?

The noise is only noticeable within the dark areas of the bokeh...I think they are all composed well...

[clarence]

ISO noise levels are annoying and they are soft.

Get a xxd series in your hands and some post process skills

Hmmm, not sure what to tell you...is the 100-400 softer than your L glass?

The noise is only noticeable within the dark areas of the bokeh

Thanks Tim, but I didn't particularly notice any bothersome softness or noise in these pictures. Sadly, I must be so accustomed to taking soft and noisy pictures that maybe I'm desensitized to it. Sometimes it helps to have a fresh set of expert eyes point out what's "annoying"... that's one of the main intents of C&C.

I tried to compare the noise "within the dark areas of the bokeh" to the baseball pictures in your gallery (http://www.fainphoto.com/Intensity.html), but I must not know what to look for in order to correct or avoid it in the future.

Considering how gray the drizzle made everything that day, I was actually quite pleased... in some ways I think I was lucky to have overcast skies instead of harsh shadows from direct sun.

Can you point out specific areas in a few pictures that are so "annoying" to you? Or is it all of the pictures in general?

[eigga]

Nothing wrong with the noise. Most people dont look 100% at dark parts of the background!

Keep up the good work with your inferior L glass

Im not big on over worrying about the horizon but #8 is way off.

Practice with the loose ring... once you get used to it its a great feature. Your hands will automatically switch between the shutter buttons as you practice and it will be second nature

[clarence]

Im not big on over worrying about the horizon but #8 is way off.
Thanks Matt. I'm usually a sucker for horizon correction, but I already amputated the kid's ankle, so I couldn't straighten it at all without losing more.

[tfizzle]

Here...i'll post a few pictures to let you know what I mean. Maybe the lighting makes them soft and not the glass.

Here's one from another forum...he posts here too. Jimmy Hickey

http://jimmyhickey.smugmug.com/photos/540367630_75rde-L.jpg
and yours
http://crtforum.com/img/2009-05-16_3326.JPG

I see a difference in sharpness...and yours seem soft (comparitively to what I've seen from other L glass). He uses a 5d and 70-200 L (if I recall correctly) though...just seems different to me. Maybe you have the AF point on their mid-body on that one...seems like the legs are sharp and the faces/helmet not so much.

He's also shooting in open skies.

See what I mean? Maybe I'm just full of crap too...which I've been known to be. I guess I'm just saying that with the equipment you have that they seem softer than others with the same equipment. Hope I make sense.

Your action is GREAT...pictures are really good and I wouldn't hesitate to buy them...just trying to figure out if the body/lens you were using effects things. Also, it could just come down to the lighting you were working with. Keep up the good work

PS...don't compare my work to yours...lol...these pictures are better than I can do...I'm comparing them to similar photogs that I know that have the same equipment at their disposal. I've been using an xt w/kit lens, a cheap tamron zoom, and occasionally (when I borrow it) a 70-200f4L

PSS...lol. I looked at your 40d gallery and those are really good/sharp. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the lighting is what throws me off in this...maybe just maybe

[clarence]

Here...i'll post a few pictures to let you know what I mean. Maybe the lighting makes them soft and not the glass.

Here's one from another forum...he posts here too. Jimmy Hickey

http://jimmyhickey.smugmug.com/photos/540367630_75rde-L.jpg

I see a difference in sharpness...and yours seem soft

See what I mean?

Oh, I have no doubt that there are millions of pictures sharper than the ones I take.

I also didn't mean to imply that my Canon Rebel was anywhere near as nice as Jimmy's 5D. I'm the first to admit that the faults in my pictures are probably not equipment related.

But, yes, aside from the different camera, different sport, different photographer, different lens, different lighting, yes, that certainly is a valid example of a picture that's sharper than mine.

As I said in the original post, my neighbor asked me to take pictures of his kid at a lacrosse game. I've never seen a lacrosse game, but since I wanted to play with this new Rebel, I went for an hour, sat in the drizzle, and had a lot of fun. Can't wait to try it again in a couple of weeks.

[tfizzle]

Oh, I have no doubt that there are millions of pictures sharper than the ones I take.

I also didn't mean to imply that my Canon Rebel was anywhere near as nice as Jimmy's 5D. I'm the first to admit that the faults in my pictures are probably not equipment related.

See...I think having the t1i is great. But going through your other pictures I think it IS the camera/lens combo that leaves something to be desired. Not knocking the t1i...it has it's purpose. But in your 40d gallery it seems even under night lighting the bokeh is smoother...they are sharper...and I absolutely love the 40d series of kids football. You do a great job.

At any rate I think there is a difference between the t1i and the 40d even within your own photography....I will say it's probably the auto focusing difference between the xxd and rebel series.

at the end of the day, anyway, enjoy the new equipment!

[clarence]

...my neighbor asked me to take pictures of his kid at a lacrosse game. I've never seen a lacrosse game, but since I wanted to play with this new Rebel, I went for an hour, sat in the drizzle, and had a lot of fun. Can't wait to try it again in a couple of weeks.

They had another game yesterday, so I got a chance to try again.

This time I brought both bodies... 40D and T1i/500D. And I alternated between a couple of lenses... 100-400L zoom and 200/2.8L prime.

I combined all files together and then did the crop and resize, so it'll be fun to go back and look at the EXIF to see which body and lens produced the most keepers...


1.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_007.jpg


2.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_063.jpg


3.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_091.jpg


4.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_115.jpg


5.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_119.jpg


6.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_154.jpg


7.
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_163.jpg


8. Back side instead of face, but I liked the shot anyways...
http://crtforum.com/40D/images/2009-05-30_095.jpg