Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 57
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    You guys tend to miss the point of real variety ... you get more color in your rainbow. Take Tiger Woods for example.
    lmao funniest thing i've read in ages...
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    I have no problem with Sony. I just wanted video so I went Canon so you need to get your facts straight!
    So Sony is awesome except for missing that one big feature that made you switch to another brand.

    Awesome, okay, got it.

    I'm not insulting Don's picture taking, I'm not insulting Sony as a brand. It is foolish, however, to think that a brand is without it's shortcomings, Olympus, Sony, Pentax, Canon or Nikon.

    Thanks for the personal attack, though.

    And Don, 85MM, 135MM, whatever. Got the wrong lens there obviously, but the point does remain the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    The 85mm would be more appropriate on the APS-C, providing a similar 135mm effective shot. The point is ... the gym lights suck, even with killer aperture.p
    And to be honest, there's not a ton you can do about that. If you plan on continuing to sell these shots, you should sit down with the editor at the paper and figure out the limits of acceptable pictures, though. If this is just newsprint quality, you could probably allow a little more noise and a higher ISO than what you're limiting yourself to now. A bit of an end-run around the lighting issue, of course, and probably not your preferred solution, but it would probably make your life easier all the same.
    Last edited by jekostas; 12-13-2009 at 10:38 PM.
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554
    Admittedly, 'jekostas', there are aspects to these images that are "negotiable", I suppose. I am more critical of the shots than others. I mean, they are simply amazed and overwhelmed at the clarity and resolution I have been able to bring to the paper.

    Of course, there are darn few students that can pop for the set up I'm using, even in its most minimal of form. That's a point of contention, from time to time, as it should be. If you are going to do the job, it pays to have the "right" equipment (or tools). I have gone to great lengths to make sure I have a decent shot at it.

    Obviously, there is a disproportionate aspect to the cost of the tools and the final product. It would take, years, at this rate, to pay for even half the equipment in use. The need for a more permanent and cost-realized position is always desired. There is a minimal profit angle to the publication, but if it has improved and attractive looking images ... who knows? Recognition is always worthwhile and defensible. Putting your "best foot" forward, as it were.

    Like I have implied, time will tell.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 12-13-2009 at 11:34 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,087
    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Obviously, there is a disproportionate aspect to the cost of the tools and the final product. It would take, years, at this rate, to pay for even half the equipment in use.l.
    If you're in a reasonably large urban centre, you could also try renting equipment for specific shoots. If it's not an item you could see using every- or every-other job, it's a great option for either a once in a lifetime shoot, or to decide whether you want to buy outright.
    E-510
    E-1
    Zuiko 14-54 F2.8-3.5 MkI
    Zuiko 70-300 F4.0-5.6
    Konica Hexanon 52mm F1.8
    Cullmann 2503
    Benro KS-0

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Lightbulb Some alternative routes ... for answering the itch

    Renting a Metz 76 for a SONY ... that could be an investigation, for sure. Heck, I think it would be awesome just to walk into a store and see one! The call for them has to be from the higher-end shooters, because I have NEVER seen one in my circles. That kind of flash gun exceeds the reach of most suburbanites.

    Aside from the flash, I have been considering the SIGMA 12~24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG UWA Zoom for Full Frame. Currently, I am kind of pleasantly strapped with the TAMRON SP AF 14mm f/2.8 Aspherical (IF) Rectiliner PRIME, the K-M AF 17~35mm f/2.8-4 "D" Zoom and the SIGMA AF 20mm f/1.8 DG EX RF as my ultra wide angle cluster lenses. The 12~24mm will give me some flexibility and the UWA zoom convenience that I don't enjoy with the other lenses. My SIGMA 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX is a dedicated APS-C lens ... and after you do the conversion, it is shooting effectively 15-30mm. As with any wide angle, it is all about edge to edge performance. You are not buying this lens to ... backup with it. If anything, you can get closer. This 12~24mm lens enjoys a 122 rectilinear sweep @ 12mm and an M.F.D. of 11" This still sends chills down my spine. Awesome width without the curl.

    If I were to go this route, the other lens I would get with this 12-24mm would be the MC ARAX 35mm f/2.8 T/S (Tilt-Shift) for straightening up those architectural structures that the other lenses cannot compensate for. This is a mission lens, not your average design. Most folks only have one of these T/S lenses in their bag. I have zero. I was putting this off for a design course, but maybe it is time to just decide to get one. SONY has nothing like it.

    Between these two lenses, you have an tremendous architectural one-two punch for around $1300.

    Another idea for some image improvement was the bokeh-generating SONY MF 135mm f/2.8 [4.5] STF lens. This is what I would call a "making a work of art" lens. Something we could all benefit from ... if we were so disposed. Only Minolta designed one of these ... so its unique properties make it extremely attractive. For the portrait artist ... a must have, I am sure. Again, can be had somewhere around $1100-1300.

    Then, getting a bit more serious about the "walk-around" range ... putting off the SONY CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 77 and going with SIGMA's new AF 24-70mm f/2.8 DG EX HSM IF 82 lens. The performance is nearly identical to the Zeiss and can be had for the impressively low price of $799 at Abes of Maine. That's nearly HALF of what the SONY costs ... for almost identical performance. This would retire the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF), selling it off for around $300, making the cost of the glass upgrade around $500. Is it worth it? There are those who would say ... absolutely. Without a doubt, this becomes the cheapest purchase of any of them and may represent the most useful improvement.

    Last, but by no means least ... the lens from this year's online debate and contest, the SONY AF 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM lens. Obviously replacing my Tokina AT-X 840 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 This lens exchange is perhaps the cruelest, because that Tokina only weighs 33-ounces and the SONY is a neck-killing 54-ounces. I had been told to get a shoulder sling to carry this lens, when mounted. I still am not convinced this exchange is honestly worth it. I am hard pressed to see why carrying a heavier lens in the field is an advantage. I suspect that only a side-by-side is going to make this justifiable.

    It's all food for thought, considering all the options and paths my photography goes. Some folks would see no benefit is some directions, others ... well, who knows?
    Last edited by DonSchap; 12-14-2009 at 02:25 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Chicago, IL USA
    Posts
    935
    None of your options above will help you at all in your basketball shots. In fact, that whole post should be a completely new topic.

    Regarding your basketball shots, you have to increase your ISO and spend your money on a good noise reduction program. You said it. You need more light. They don't make faster glass, you cant slow your shutter speed, and on camera flash will not be acceptable at the games. All you have is ISO. Bump it up. Hell, that FF Sony is 25Mp. Take the shot at ISO1600 or 2000, do your post processing, and rescale the image to a smaller size. I'm sure the college newspaper does not need an image that is 6000 pixels wide. Rescaling the image will greatly reduce the noise.

    I understand your strive for great photos. We all have that. But you are not working in an environment that will get you great photos. Those are not your limitations, those are the gym's limitations. Spending your money to improve a problem with the gym is a great waste of your money. Are your editors complaining about the photos you submit? From what you stated earlier, they are tickled pink about your images. So even though you are not 100% satisfied, your client is. This is the time where you make money with your photography. Stop throwing money out the door on more equipment that will not make your client any more satisfied. Just sit tight, bring in the money, and when your client begins to be unsatisfied with your images, then find a way to make your images better.
    Nikon D300 | MB-D10 | Nikkor 12-24/4 | Nikkor 50/1.8 | Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRI | Sigma 18-50/2.8 | SB-800 | SB-80DX (x4) | Radiopopper JrX Studio |

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Guelph, Ontario
    Posts
    1,903
    Don, what would be the biggest size that the College would print any of your pics do you know?

    Cause it it is just going on a magazine and such, then you don't have to worry about noise at ISO 1600 too much.

    Maybe try using the crop mode at 11MP and see if the noise is as visible at that high ISO.
    Canon EOS 7D

    flickr
    FLUIDR

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,554

    Cool Not limited ...

    Well, VTEC ... I did try to identify the final post as kind of a "departure" for the original "portable sunshine" option.

    Name:  Metz-76-DCRP.jpg
Views: 69
Size:  66.9 KB

    Quote Originally Posted by DonSchap View Post
    Aside from the flash, I have been considering ... well, who knows?
    I suppose these words could have been misconstrued. This thread was not begun to identify just the lighting option I had in mind, but more of a "Christmas present to my photography", as it were, based on my "Wish List" ... in my GEAR LIST. So, thanks for trying to keep it focused, but it is not necessary.

    I fully realize that there may be some decidedly limited improvement to the shots by going to a higher ISO. Yes, the customer may be unaware of the need for this "corruption", but I am aware of it and being kind of a purist ... there is only so much of that even I can stomach.

    As you have seen, arguments abound for the quality of the glass I use ... but know this ... this is not about that. The lenses I have in my bag are just as capable, light-wise, as any others on the market, Zeiss or not. Once you hit f/2.8 ... with a zoom ... that's all she wrote. Yes, you may improve center-to-edge focus by upping the ante ... but when it comes to photons ... you have collected them all.

    As far as 135mm lenses go ... I have the "ringer." The best optic out there ... "she's giving me all she's got ... and she can do no more, captain!"

    So, as we now contend ... ISO ... "it is the ONLY way. You don't know the power of the dark side ..."

    Well, it is NOISE that is the dark side, in the digital world ... and I, for one, simply try to avoid it. ISO-1000 on the a850 delivers an "acceptable" shot with no further work required. Ratcheting up to ISO-3200 introduces me into a whole new ball game. It is not as pretty in here. Yes, the a850 has a tremendous 24.6 MP grassy field to play in ... but, you begin to see the weeds!

    I mean there is a threshold here, that I am forced to cross. Like anything difficult, you have to build up your tolerance and get to it. Perhaps investing in a good NOISE "weed-eater" is the way I need to move to have a fighting chance in these "dark times."

    Quote Originally Posted by Elisha82 View Post
    Don, what would be the biggest size that the College would print any of your pics do you know?
    5"x7" is the limit, I have been told. I just do not see my images as full-page or even half-page efforts. I mean, that would be amazing, but not this time. Nothing is that important!

    Anyway ... all that will be seen, so to speak, next month. The argument for the time being ... is on a holiday hiatus. School's out for ... Christmas!
    Last edited by DonSchap; 12-14-2009 at 08:55 AM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Bay Area, California
    Posts
    1,546
    So what do you plan on doing when your in a gym that doesn't allow flash photography?

    Also... If we are talking about budget. 4 flashes at full power on each corner of the court is more than enough light to get perfect exposure with very very little to no motion blur without crazy high ISO and it wouldn't cost you $1700.


    TV lights are the savior of indoor sports.. With those you can reach 1/400 at f2.8 without going over ISO600ish. So if a gym has them complain until they turn them on
    Last edited by r3g; 12-14-2009 at 09:45 AM.
    Nikon D90, D40 Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 | Nikkor 35mm f/1.8
    Vertical Grip, SB-600, SB-24, Sunpak 433D, Metz 40AF-4N, Alienbees CyberSync Triggers

    R3G Media | Flickr

    "You're pulling some awesome action shots with a cam and lens that are supposed to be rubbish ! " - Rooz

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,421
    meh...don just wants a new toy. its got nothing to do with photography. at least we'll get a change from the tamron/ sony sales job. now metz can join the sales family, at least its a quality product.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •