Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 16 Nov 2012 (Friday) 09:43
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon t2i hockey pics not sharp

 
oldvultureface
Goldmember
Avatar
4,228 posts
Gallery: 71 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 239
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Northwest Indiana USA
     
Nov 18, 2012 13:12 |  #31

TSchrief wrote in post #15260322 (external link)
Did anyone else notice the number of posters in this thread from Indiana?

Naw, didn't notice. :p We used to fly into Plymouth for breakfast many years ago.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
kthomas910
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Nov 2012
     
Nov 18, 2012 13:31 |  #32

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15259999 (external link)
What mode are you shooting in? Av, Tv, P, or green box?

You don't want to brighten after the shot, that is a recipe for noise. You want to push your exposure to the right a bit, and you can level down the area that needs brought down. Look up how to set EC on your camera, and put it to the right a bit, maybe 1/3, but maybe 2/3.

Keep practicing, you will find out the settings that work well.

I shoot anywhere between f3.2 and f8 at ISO 3200 or higher, so that I can get shutter speeds of 1/800th to 1/1000th.

QUOTED IMAGE


I'm shooting in manual or TV mode. I haven't tried pushing the ISO above 3200 for fear it would get noisy. But I guess I should try. I've always been at 2.8 to let the most light in. From what I know, the t2i won't let me push the EC manually unless I am in TV mode. I did try that yesterday. Sounds like maybe I should be pushing the ISO up more. Your shot here is great, but I'm betting you are getting better lighting in an arena than the small rinks I'm shooting in. Most just have a few flourscents hanging high above the ice. Thanks again.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,126 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 213
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Nov 18, 2012 15:02 |  #33

If you are over exposing as we suggested, you should not need to increase the brightness in post processing. When I over expose by one stop, I will add a lttle contrast, add some sharpness, apply some noise reduction, and decrease the highlights to help with the blown out ice in Lightroom.

In our rink, I can shoot at f/4, 1/1250sec and ISO 6400 and get good results with the above PP actions. I always shoot in RAW.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brandon ­ Anderson ­ Photos
Senior Member
Avatar
906 posts
Likes: 12
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Lincoln, Nebraska
     
Nov 18, 2012 22:28 |  #34

kfreels wrote in post #15257272 (external link)
Don't shoot sports at f2.8. You have moving subjects and a very minimum depth of field to work with and wide-open is always going to be softer than optimum. Take it up to f3.5 or f4. Nump your ISO up to compensate. Don't sweat the noise. Shoot in RAW and fix the noise with a decent dedicated noise reduction program.

I beg to differ on the don't shoot sports at 2.8 I know its a personal opinion and all but I think sports look best when shot at 2.8 just for the separation factor. I dont want the crowd or other players in the backround making the image too busy looking.

All of these photos were shot at 2.8 and are pretty darn sharp.

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8197/8194439073_00a222cca2_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8209/8153908245_8fcc68c9fa_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8458/8025123958_0c6aaee4d9_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8038/8025131814_dc268cb456_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7257/7868331318_9fdbde5bca_b.jpg

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8281/7798489878_4afafce14e_b.jpg

Gear: 2-1D MkIII's | 5D Gripped | 50D Gripped | Rebel 6.3 | 70-200L F2.8 MkI | 17-40 L F4 | 300mm f2.8L | 28-135 3.5/5.6 IS | Nifty Fifty | Canon 15mm 2.8 Fisheye | (2)Norman 400b | 430 ExII | Some Studio Lighting | Go Pro Hero | Go Pro Hero 2
Web Site www.ba-photos.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
34,531 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4406
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Nov 18, 2012 22:41 |  #35

Shooting at f3.2 or f3.5 would not have really added much more definition to the crowd. Going just a little bit past wide-open will yield sharper images and give a little lee-way in the focal plane without really losing that much separation.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
stsva
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,360 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 284
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Northern Virginia
     
Nov 19, 2012 07:11 |  #36

kthomas910 wrote in post #15259969 (external link)
First, thanks so much for all the advice from all of you. My son happened to have a game yesterday and it was a rink with windows , so it was brighter than 90% of the rinks I shoot in. It also had a balcony with unobstructed shots, so there was no glass involved. In short, I'm not gonna get better conditions than this. Using the overexposure method you guys all threw out there, my shots definitely came out brighter/better. Below is one of them (though I did have to punch up the brightness some in post). Definitely better to my eyes, though the contrast seems a bit off. It was taken at 1/500 2.8 ISO 3200.

I've also included below a focus test on a box outside in the sun. ISO 100 2.8 1/3200 on tripod. Focal length 144. Spot center focus. Maybe this will help determine if I have a lens issue. I'm certainly a novice, but this does look like to me like it might not be 100% clear, but I'll let you all judge that.

Thanks again!

The box looks fairly sharp, but not razor sharp; it's definitely better than your first hockey samples. There are a few possibilities here - 1) Your Sigma lens is just plain not razor sharp at f/2.8; 2) your camera and Sigma lens don't play well together and you have slight front- or back-focusing going on; 3) your technique is at fault. As of now, I think 1) and/or 2) would be the most likely culprits.

I assume you can do Live View focusing with your camera. If so, try the slow Live View focusing and/or 10X magnification manual Live View focusing on the box, and compare that to regular AF focus on the box. If you can get a super sharp image using Live View focusing, that tells you that 1) above is not the problem, and that it's probably 2) above.


Some Canon stuff and a little bit of Yongnuo.
http://www.pbase.com/s​tsva/profile (external link)
Member of the GIYF
Club and
HAMSTTR
٩ Breeders Club https://photography-on-the.net …=744235&highlig​ht=hamsttr Join today!
Image Editing OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kfreels
Goldmember
Avatar
4,297 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, IN
     
Nov 19, 2012 13:31 |  #37

Brandon Anderson Photos wrote in post #15262236 (external link)
I beg to differ on the don't shoot sports at 2.8 I know its a personal opinion and all but I think sports look best when shot at 2.8 just for the separation factor. I dont want the crowd or other players in the backround making the image too busy looking.

All of these photos were shot at 2.8 and are pretty darn sharp.

Yes, the shots you put up are pretty sharp and have no need to be sharper.

But going from 2.8 to 3.5 is not going to significantly change the separation factor any more than if the crowd were to move a few feet closer or further from you. What it WILL do is give you a little more room for error when it comes to focusing on your subject who may be moving towards or away from you slightly in places where the AF sensor isn't tracking. It simply improves your keeper rate.


I am serious....and don't call me Shirley.
Canon 7D and a bunch of other stuff

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kthomas910
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
7 posts
Joined Nov 2012
     
Nov 19, 2012 19:32 |  #38

stsva wrote in post #15263107 (external link)
The box looks fairly sharp, but not razor sharp; it's definitely better than your first hockey samples. There are a few possibilities here - 1) Your Sigma lens is just plain not razor sharp at f/2.8; 2) your camera and Sigma lens don't play well together and you have slight front- or back-focusing going on; 3) your technique is at fault. As of now, I think 1) and/or 2) would be the most likely culprits.

I assume you can do Live View focusing with your camera. If so, try the slow Live View focusing and/or 10X magnification manual Live View focusing on the box, and compare that to regular AF focus on the box. If you can get a super sharp image using Live View focusing, that tells you that 1) above is not the problem, and that it's probably 2) above.

I took some controlled shots as you suggested and the manually focused shots are sharper than the AF ones. I went on the Sigma web site and right there on the front of the support page they mention that their lenses often need to be adjusted to work with specific cameras. I contacted them and they've told me they will do a courtesy service to adjust. So I guess I will try that.

Thank you all for your advice and help. All that I've learned here, plus hopefully a tweak to the lens will make an enormous difference in my hockey shots.

THanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lilkngster
Senior Member
721 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 38
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Nov 19, 2012 20:19 |  #39

kthomas910 wrote in post #15265811 (external link)
I took some controlled shots as you suggested and the manually focused shots are sharper than the AF ones. I went on the Sigma web site and right there on the front of the support page they mention that their lenses often need to be adjusted to work with specific cameras. I contacted them and they've told me they will do a courtesy service to adjust. So I guess I will try that.

Thank you all for your advice and help. All that I've learned here, plus hopefully a tweak to the lens will make an enormous difference in my hockey shots.

THanks!

It does look like your lens is front focusing by quite a bit, assuming good technique. just to confirm, let your lens autofocus, change it to manual focus, go to live view and see how much and which direction you have to correctly manual focus.

I also like magic lantern (focus peak) to give me quick confirmation of where the focusing plane is, especially when dealing with a thin dof.

Send it in and hopefully it will come back much improved


6dII/80d/1dIII|8mm to 400mm|Pro-10/100

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ltdave
Goldmember
2,771 posts
Gallery: 20 photos
Likes: 647
Joined Apr 2012
Location: the farthest point east in michigan
     
Nov 19, 2012 22:17 as a reply to  @ lilkngster's post |  #40

looks like you got some good advice here...

i was having all sorts of trouble with my 70-200 f2.8 L IS USM and 7d (focus issues) and there were pages upon pages about how i didnt know how to operate my camera, how if i just used back button focusing, i was a crappy photograher, i was an idiot, how my technique while good for film just doesnt apply to the digital world (not all of this was said on the public forum)...

ive contacted Canon (CPS program) and they want my camera for evaluation...

good luck and have fun!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Yogi ­ Bear
Goldmember
1,492 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2009
Location: League City, TX USA (Houston)
     
Nov 20, 2012 17:41 |  #41

kthomas910 wrote in post #15265811 (external link)
I took some controlled shots as you suggested and the manually focused shots are sharper than the AF ones. I went on the Sigma web site and right there on the front of the support page they mention that their lenses often need to be adjusted to work with specific cameras. I contacted them and they've told me they will do a courtesy service to adjust. So I guess I will try that.

Thank you all for your advice and help. All that I've learned here, plus hopefully a tweak to the lens will make an enormous difference in my hockey shots.

THanks!

Be sure to send the camera with the lens so that the lens is calibrated specifically to YOUR camera!

Good luck!


Canon EOS 7D | EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM | EF-S 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6 IS |
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM | 250D | EF-S 10-22 mm f/3.5-4.5 USM | 580 EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,539 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon t2i hockey pics not sharp
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is bsowde
677 guests, 346 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.