Shooting Wife's Triathlon

[scubthebub]

Originally Posted by Fligi7

What I usually do is have the person wear L.A. Gear's for the run and cycling. It makes them easier to spot.

lol, are those compatible with pedal clips?

[Fligi7]

We're hardcore. We don't use clips. And we use cruiser bikes.

Try not to take my picture as I cruise 20km in this...

[ZXDrew]

Tracking with the 70-200 is gonna exactly like tracking with any other lens. When she goes on a training ride, go get a few practice shots. You have to pick a single auto focus point to ensure you're tracking will be spot on. I prefer the top point when holding the camera in portrait. Make sure the camera is at at least 1/1600th if not faster or you will get blur.

I've been teaching my father how to shoot. Below is one of his shots on a 20D at ISO 800 and 1/800 f4 on a 70-200 f4:

If you look at his feet there is a little blur there.

Heres another example at I shot with a 40D at 1/1600 ISO 100 f2.8 on a 70-200:


On tracking if you pick the middle point over the top, you must ensure you hit focus on the bar or you will jump to riders croch. At 2.8 the DOF is thin enough to make the face a little blurry.

[SuzyView]

Mod's note: I moved this to TALK.

I would think the 20D would do better. But if I were you and had money to spend, I'd sell the 20D and get the 7D and a 100-400. I gave my 20D away and shelved my 40D because the 7D is that good. But if you are set to get 1 lens and you know you'll be shooting outdoors, the 100-400 is sharp. If you don't think you'll use the lens outside all the time, then the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best lens out there. If this is your hobby, then I'd say, take the 20D and call it good.

[Gizmo1137]

Originally Posted by cwood

That sounds very odd to me. I have also competed in many triathlons over the past 20 years and I can't think of a single event that did not have a ton of spectator area on the course that is suitable for picture taking for the run and the bike. In fact when I work the events I often find myself competing for space with all the husbands and wifes who are out there taking their own pictures. Only the finish line and swim transition really benefits the working photographer at these events.

Regarding the swim... the transition is the only reliable picture to get... Identifying your wife in her black wetsuit and red swim hat with 1000 other athletes is damn near impossible. Depending on the layout of the transition you might need to use a pretty long lens to get the shot of her running out of the water.

I see your point, but in my experience it depends on the route and layout of the event and how many spectators there are. Quite a few have been so deep in spectators it is damn near impossible.

[scubthebub]

Originally Posted by SuzyView

Mod's note: I moved this to TALK.

Thanks, total rookie move on my part

Originally Posted by SuzyView

I would think the 20D would do better. But if I were you and had money to spend, I'd sell the 20D and get the 7D and a 100-400. I gave my 20D away and shelved my 40D because the 7D is that good. But if you are set to get 1 lens and you know you'll be shooting outdoors, the 100-400 is sharp. If you don't think you'll use the lens outside all the time, then the 70-200 2.8 IS is the best lens out there. If this is your hobby, then I'd say, take the 20D and call it good.

I agree the 7D (or a 1D) would be best but this is just a hobby and only the second sporting event I have ever shot. My long lens choice is an internal battle I keep fighting with myself. Over 90% of my shots are outside so the 100-400 would be great. However, for that 10% of the time the 100-400 would not work very well. So my internal question is which sacrifice am I willing to make (not sure yet). I've had a few situations were not having any fast glass indoors has burned me. Of course I could make everything a bit more confusing by throwing in some primes like the 135L into the mix. I hope by renting and using some of these lenses I'll be able to make a better choice. Reading reviews and looking at 100% crops only get you so far.

[scubthebub]

Originally Posted by ZXDrew

When she goes on a training ride, go get a few practice shots. You have to pick a single auto focus point to ensure you're tracking will be spot on. I prefer the top point when holding the camera in portrait. Make sure the camera is at at least 1/1600th if not faster or you will get blur.

On tracking if you pick the middle point over the top, you must ensure you hit focus on the bar or you will jump to riders croch. At 2.8 the DOF is thin enough to make the face a little blurry.

More great tips, thanks!

[Fligi7]

Originally Posted by ZXDrew

Make sure the camera is at at least 1/1600th if not faster or you will get blur.

I would also recommend some shots with intended background blur by slowing the shutter to 1/400 or slower (depending how far from you they are and how quickly they are approaching or passing your line of sight) and following the subject. These pictures can also turn out quite well.

[cwood]

Originally Posted by ZXDrew

Make sure the camera is at at least 1/1600th if not faster or you will get blur.

Below is one of his shots on a 20D at ISO 800 and 1/800 f4 on a 70-200 f4:

If you look at his feet there is a little blur there.

There is a tendency for people to be argumentative in online forums... please don't take this the wrong way... but I disagree.

1/1000 is sufficient to freeze anything that is not getting whipped around (like a baseball bat). I don't think there is anyway a cyclist spinning without his shoes on at probably no more than 60 rotations/minute is not going to be frozen at 1/800. I think there is something else wrong with the photo

When I shoot gymnastics in DARK gyms I am often forced to shoot at ISO 12,800 and the best shutter speed I can get is 1/320. At those speeds the feet and hands will often blur but generally I can still keep a sharp face... as in this example which was taken at 1/400


When I shoot mountain biking and triathlon 1/1000 never fails to produce sharp images.

[JeffreyG]

Get the 100-400. Range is important for triathlons. There are often crowds and it can be hard to control your location.

I shoot my wife doing Tri's and other races. Here is a link to a tri from last summer shot with the 100-400L. You will especially want reach to shoot the transition area.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirba...7624432165815/

Also bring a wide zoom (24-70, 24-105) for the finish, which can be very hard to predict.

These are from earlier in the season when it was colder. One is 400mm, the other is 340mm. Reach helps a lot.

[scubthebub]

Originally Posted by cwood

There is a tendency for people to be argumentative in online forums... please don't take this the wrong way... but I disagree.

1/1000 is sufficient to freeze anything that is not getting whipped around (like a baseball bat). I don't think there is anyway a cyclist spinning without his shoes on at probably no more than 60 rotations/minute is not going to be frozen at 1/800. I think there is something else wrong with the photo

When I shoot gymnastics in DARK gyms I am often forced to shoot at ISO 12,800 and the best shutter speed I can get is 1/320. At those speeds the feet and hands will often blur but generally I can still keep a sharp face... as in this example which was taken at 1/400

When I shoot mountain biking and triathlon 1/1000 never fails to produce sharp images.

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, there is always multiple ways to get the same shot. My goal is to shoot the 70-200 wide open and at the max shutter speed I can with a comfortable ISO. She is decently fast on her triathlon bike so she'll easily be close to 20mph which is probably faster than mountain biking. At the same time if you look at raw number at 20mph (~30 fps) the difference she travel between 1/1000 and 1/1600 shutter speed is only 0.135 inches which should be fine as long as I hit the focus right. So you are both probably right, but since I only have one shot at her first triathlon I'm going to try to stay well above both of these speeds.

Originally Posted by JeffreyG

Get the 100-400. Range is important for triathlons. There are often crowds and it can be hard to control your location.

I shoot my wife doing Tri's and other races. Here is a link to a tri from last summer shot with the 100-400L. You will especially want reach to shoot the transition area.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirba...7624432165815/

Also bring a wide zoom (24-70, 24-105) for the finish, which can be very hard to predict.

These are from earlier in the season when it was colder. One is 400mm, the other is 340mm. Reach helps a lot.

I will definitely have my 24-105 at the ready on my other body for closer shots. For maximum versatility I was going to also rent a 1.4x which will get me to 280mm. If I need more than that I can either put it on my 20D or crop down my 5D to be about the resolution of my 20D. I do understand that I don't have to mess with TC on the 100-400, but I will also find out pretty early if I am going to have a reach problem or not so I will either have it on or not. Plus I'll still be a full stop faster at the long end with the TC over the 100-400 which goes to f/5.6 at approximately 250mm.

[cwood]

Originally Posted by scubthebub

There is nothing wrong with disagreeing, there is always multiple ways to get the same shot. My goal is to shoot the 70-200 wide open and at the max shutter speed I can with a comfortable ISO. She is decently fast on her triathlon bike so she'll easily be close to 20mph which is probably faster than mountain biking. At the same time if you look at raw number at 20mph (~30 fps) the difference she travel between 1/1000 and 1/1600 shutter speed is only 0.135 inches which should be fine as long as I hit the focus right. So you are both probably right, but since I only have one shot at her first triathlon I'm going to try to stay well above both of these speeds.

Its never wrong to shoot higher shutter speeds ... and it'll probably be sunny for the ride so I'm sure you'll be on the high side of 1/2000 anyway.

FYI - that guy is one of the faster Downhill racers in the country... and he's on a very fast course, so he's probably going at least 40mph.

[ZXDrew]

Originally Posted by cwood

There is a tendency for people to be argumentative in online forums... please don't take this the wrong way... but I disagree.

I prefer to stick on the side of math. Lets say the average female cyclist travels 17mph. That means the cyclist travels .374 inches during the actuation of a shutter set to 1/800th of a second or .187 inches at 1/1600th of a second (I've also added a calculator I made as a zip file). And that is just taking into account for the cyclist body. If you add in the rotation of the feet or swinging of the hands you could be looking a much more travel during the duration of the shutter.

While the movement is not going to be as clearly pronounced as the rider comes towards you, the distance traveled will remain and become more pronounced as they pass closer to you. Even looking at the photo you might not notice the blur, but shooting at 1/1000th it will be there. One of my favorite shots to get of the pro triathletes is when they are down on their aero bars and you can literally see the MPH on their computer and the lines in the road reflected off thier glasses.

This also does not account for any panning of the camera with the rider. It could either minimize or enhance the blurr depending on the operators smoothness and familiarly with different techniques and focal length.

Also this isn't about the minimum you can get away with in terrible lighting it is about the ideal speed for cycling. Also what do you think the keeper rate is for a non-pro shooter trying panning? 1 out of ? I'd say it is not going to be close to a pro's keeper rate.

I'll stick to my recommendation of 1/1600th being the minimum for a clean cycling shot.

[AntonLargiader]

I'm the guy who started the thread Drew referred to above. My two biggest tips are:

1) Don't underestimate the difficulty of finding her in a fast-moving crowd.

2) Practice first. Go to a 5k or some other event and pretend it's her race. Set up for at least three different shots and see what it takes to adapt to each new location. Then post some pics here.

If I read this right, it's an Olympic distance which is good; the athletes will spread out more after the fairly long swim. You might be able to get some shots of her swimming back to the beach, for which 400mm would be nice, but after that I suspect 300 will be enough. Depends how good a view you have into the transition area. I haven't shot cycling but I suspect 400 vs 300 for this is pretty meaningless; if you're on the road she is riding, she'll blow through that difference pretty quickly. And for the running stuff, it's all in the other thread!

Good luck, but make some good luck for yourself by doing some serious practice first. There's a lot of technique (changing settings, focusing, panning) that you want to get familiar with.

[Fligi7]

How about instead of using math or suggestions of what shutter speed to use, you just take a few shots of the first cyclists you see (unless she's awesome and is one of them) at varying shutter speeds and magnify them in review to see which produces the best results then and there. We could argue all day on what should work and has worked for each of us. Anton's idea of practicing at a prior event is a very good one.