Last Sunday soccer Match

Tall_Paul_2000 wrote in post #2461454
Tareq,

These look good, I would agree with the comment regarding the horizon and straightening it.

One thing to consider, looking at your settings is that you were shooting at ISO 1600 and getting 1/1250 as a shutter speed. I would possibly consider shooting at around 1/500 or 1/640 and dropping the ISO to 800 so as to reduce the noise issue.

That said, I am surprised by the amount of noise shown at ISO1600 for a MK11n.....did you underexpose these and have to bring the exposure up in PP?

in fact i can lower the iso and the shutter speed, but i was worry that maybe 1/400-1/800 not enough to freeze the actions to get sharper results, but if you see that 1/500-1/800 are enough to get good frozen results then next time i will lower my iso to proper one and reducing the amount of noise then.

In fact all these are underexposure and i bring the exposure up, yes i did, and don't forget these are cropped shots which will show more noise than uncropped one.

marcatkins wrote in post #2461757
Hi Tareq,

As I said in another thread on this forum try to refrain from shooting people from behind... you need faces and ball in the shot.

#3 is the best here, try shooting from a lower angle next time. Looks like you were standing up.

it is difficult to follow players faces or balls at the same time, and the problem is that i shoot in RAW+JPEG because in the club, the Media admins need my shots in JPEG and i want them in RAW so my memory cards can't handle alot of shots and thats why i missed alot of actions when shooting few, but later when i will get SD card then i will use RAW for one card and JPEG for another then i will fire my shutter to shoot all actions including faces and b....

about shooting from lower angle they told me in the club they don't prefer it, and i never see one shooter photographer in the field shooting from lower angle even those who got long primes, and i can do that but why, just to show better angle of view for those players from lower level? i did that in previous match and i didn't see much more different or say better results.
In fact i want to tell you that our staudium is small and thats why you can't get more DOF same as in International Staduims.
Should i try more shooting in sports or i have to stop trying?

please do NOT stop trying

football/soccer is best photographed from a lower level.. but if the people who want your photographs prefer the pics as they are then thats what you do.. But if you ever want to distribute to a wider audience then you would need to shoot from lower down..

your depth of field in this case isnt the size of the stadium. this pic was taken at the half way line and the end of the pitch is well out of focus.. it cant possibly be any furthur away than your background and this was taken with a 70-200.. the same shot taken from the goaline would offer even more

Really drop your iso.. on a half decent sunny day iso 100-400.. this pic is iso 200 which for some unknown reason (even to me) i prefer

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

KIPAX wrote in post #2463352
please do NOT stop trying

football/soccer is best photographed from a lower level.. but if the people who want your photographs prefer the pics as they are then thats what you do.. But if you ever want to distribute to a wider audience then you would need to shoot from lower down..

your depth of field in this case isnt the size of the stadium. this pic was taken at the half way line and the end of the pitch is well out of focus.. it cant possibly be any furthur away than your background and this was taken with a 70-200.. the same shot taken from the goaline would offer even more

Really drop your iso.. on a half decent sunny day iso 100-400.. this pic is iso 200 which for some unknown reason (even to me) i prefer

Thank you for this comments.

Next time i will shoot from lower, and i shooted from all around the sidelines and still i can't get that blur BG OOF as you all did.
about ISO i use 1600 and still i have Dark or underexposure shots, i will try to lower my ISO next time and use shutter speed between 1/400-1/800 that if it is enough to freeze the action very well, and forget to say that all shots above are at night time (7:30pm - 9:15pm) so not under the sun light, and many times i read that people here prefer to higher the iso to 1600 or even 3200 to use high shutter speed, and now you asking me to use lower ISO in night time, ok, i will try again more and more.

I didn't realise your pics where at night... and i am not sure of the lighting.. here in the uk those times usually mean dark and floodlights are on..

if you shoot in manual mode then set to f2.8 and shutter speed say 640 then point your camera at the grass and keep upping your iso until your pointer gets to center and a good exposure... IF its bad lighting and your iso doesnt hack it at 1600 then lower the shutter speed.. but looking at your exif i dont think your lighting is that bad

KIPAX wrote in post #2463488
I didn't realise your pics where at night... and i am not sure of the lighting.. here in the uk those times usually mean dark and floodlights are on..

if you shoot in manual mode then set to f2.8 and shutter speed say 640 then point your camera at the grass and keep upping your iso until your pointer gets to center and a good exposure... IF its bad lighting and your iso doesnt hack it at 1600 then lower the shutter speed.. but looking at your exif i dont think your lighting is that bad

I higher the exposure in pp first, second they are all at night time, thanks for floodlights in that staduim, it says they are one of the best in UAE staduims.

I can have iso 640-1000 but i just wanted to make it up to get shutter speed higher than 1/800 (say 1/1000 or 1/1250) but i think now i learnt from you that 1/500 up to about 1/800 are enough with good iso amount and f are always at widest value.

Tareq wrote in post #2463081
Don't worry, i know i need glass, so in the year 2007 i will add few glasses that you will say great thats it.

I have no problem(just a little disappointed in your choices if anything cause you are a cool guy) with you buying massive amount of gear. I just think it would have been more of an advantage to have put your priorities first. If you are doing pro soccer, a 400 2.8 would have been a better buy than a 1dsMKII or even 5D. Those two combined, would be about similar to what it would cost to get a 300 and 400. Now I don't know what you do with all the new bodies you got, but if you really are doing this stuff first, you really should have nabbed a 300 at the very least.

Both 400 and 300 are very versatile at f/2.8. And stick a 1.4 on either and you get even more dimensions.

grego wrote in post #2463524
I have no problem(just a little disappointed in your choices if anything cause you are a cool guy) with you buying massive amount of gear. I just think it would have been more of an advantage to have put your priorities first. If you are doing pro soccer, a 400 2.8 would have been a better buy than a 1dsMKII or even 5D. Those two combined, would be about similar to what it would cost to get a 300 and 400. Now I don't know what you do with all the new bodies you got, but if you really are doing this stuff first, you really should have nabbed a 300 at the very least.

Both 400 and 300 are very versatile at f/2.8. And stick a 1.4 on either and you get even more dimensions.

I am not into sports that much to get 300 or 400, but after some trials i think now i will plan for those long primes, but still i am not pro in sports and who knows if i will continue to shoot in sports or will stop so soon.
at least 1Dsmk2 or 5D is used for landscapes and studio works more, and for travels i don't think that 400 or 300 is a good choice.
Just many bodies is due to my bad desire to have many different bodies more than glasses, but see that i added few great glasses and i will add more later, just no hurry to buy all the bodies and glasses at the same time.
I understand you that if you were me then you will buy more glasses, but there are some got 3-5 bodies with 30 galsses, i have 5 bodies now and few glasses, now i saved for 300 or 400 or 600 so then what you will telling me to get next?

I forgot to say that i was looking to buy 1Dsmk2 and 300 f2.8 in fact but because it was little bit over my budget i prefer to buy only 1Dsmk2 (and not 5D because i love 1-series), but because i have little enough money to get something else i was confusing what to get more, if i can't get 300 f2.8 then sure i can't offer longer primes, and i was not looking for some L which is under 200mm for some reasons, then after reading alot about how great is that 5D all of you even sometimes better than 1Dsmk2 i said why not take both and finished, if i buy 1Dsmk2 i will be happy for sure but then i feel with more rest budget i want to buy something else and i will keep thinking, after i got 1Dsmk2 and 5D i feel very happy and i don't feel upset or disappointed that i didn't get something like 300 or 500, so i have time next year (2007) to buy something from 300 to 600 and maybe some little glasses such us 50 1.2 or 85L or even 35L and TS-E 24L, so just wait my planning in 2007.

Tareq wrote in post #2463571
I am not into sports that much to get 300 or 400, but after some trials i think now i will plan for those long primes, but still i am not pro in sports and who knows if i will continue to shoot in sports or will stop so soon.
at least 1Dsmk2 or 5D is used for landscapes and studio works more, and for travels i don't think that 400 or 300 is a good choice.
Just many bodies is due to my bad desire to have many different bodies more than glasses, but see that i added few great glasses and i will add more later, just no hurry to buy all the bodies and glasses at the same time.
I understand you that if you were me then you will buy more glasses, but there are some got 3-5 bodies with 30 galsses, i have 5 bodies now and few glasses, now i saved for 300 or 400 or 600 so then what you will telling me to get next?

Bear in mind that long glass isn't the be all and end all - Kipax has been shooting with a 70-200 for the past few weeks (months?!) and has got images with that which would put most of us to shame!!

As for the manual settings that you are using, I would suggest from your comments that you are using too fast a shutter speed. You're having to up the exposure in RAW which is emphasising the noise in the images. You need to get the exposure spot on in the camera and that will reduce not only the noise but also the PP that you have to do.

Kipax's advice is spot on for using the grass as a lightmeter - this works well and is what I use for nighttime sports. I would suspect though that you will need to keep the ISO at 1600 and use a shutter speed nearer 1/500 or 1/640.

Tall_Paul_2000 wrote in post #2463662
Bear in mind that long glass isn't the be all and end all - Kipax has been shooting with a 70-200 for the past few weeks (months?!) and has got images with that which would put most of us to shame!!

As for the manual settings that you are using, I would suggest from your comments that you are using too fast a shutter speed. You're having to up the exposure in RAW which is emphasising the noise in the images. You need to get the exposure spot on in the camera and that will reduce not only the noise but also the PP that you have to do.

Kipax's advice is spot on for using the grass as a lightmeter - this works well and is what I use for nighttime sports. I would suspect though that you will need to keep the ISO at 1600 and use a shutter speed nearer 1/500 or 1/640.

I think i have some shots taken at iso 800 with shutter speed about 1/500 or 1/640, and i have also shots taken at iso1600 with shutter speed lower than 1/1000 but the compositions or the actions are not so good.
Now i have more information than before, and thats why i posted some shots from 2 matches already and i will give it another try.
By the way, my 70-200 is great serving me well, so even that 300 and 400 are the best but i can do alot with 70-200IS so i don't want to say that i will be much more better when i get 300 or 400, i will learn more on my 70-200 then later when the time is ready i can get those primes you got (i still feel jealous and envious).

Because of you and Gmen (Gavin) i got into sports, nothing else.
Thank you very much.

Tareq,

Listen man, I have bought and sold more gear than you could shake a stick at, Dont panic, time is on your side and get em as and when. Either way, you will need them together. Just save your pennies!

Pete.

bristolpete wrote in post #2463755
Tareq,

Listen man, I have bought and sold more gear than you could shake a stick at, Dont panic, time is on your side and get em as and when. Either way, you will need them together. Just save your pennies!

Pete.

Thank you for this advice, Pete.
Sure i will get em one by one with the time and keep them as well, i never buy something that i will sell it later (i did with sigma already and i will never go back to same mistake), so don't worry of what i get first wether body or lens, i collect the best slowly slowly.

Tareq wrote in post #2463571
I am not into sports that much to get 300 or 400, but after some trials i think now i will plan for those long primes, but still i am not pro in sports and who knows if i will continue to shoot in sports or will stop so soon.
at least 1Dsmk2 or 5D is used for landscapes and studio works more, and for travels i don't think that 400 or 300 is a good choice.
Just many bodies is due to my bad desire to have many different bodies more than glasses, but see that i added few great glasses and i will add more later, just no hurry to buy all the bodies and glasses at the same time.
I understand you that if you were me then you will buy more glasses, but there are some got 3-5 bodies with 30 galsses, i have 5 bodies now and few glasses, now i saved for 300 or 400 or 600 so then what you will telling me to get next?

Well i meant for birds and sports, but if both of those are on the low end of priorities, i guess...

What do you plan to shoot a lot currently. That will likely dictate which focal length you get. The 600 is probably the least versatile of the 3 you listed for a first long prime.

grego wrote in post #2464624
Well i meant for birds and sports, but if both of those are on the low end of priorities, i guess...

What do you plan to shoot a lot currently. That will likely dictate which focal length you get. The 600 is probably the least versatile of the 3 you listed for a first long prime.

My priorities:

1- Landscape
2- Nature (is it part of landscape or landscape is part of it?)
3- Still Life
4- Macro
5- Portraits
6- Birds (Wildlife)
7- Sports

is there more in photography to do? then it will be bottom of my priority list