Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 2/12/2012 9:16:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/12/2012 9:22:01 PM EDT by Svetgar]
So, I took the advice here and got a new camera setup, and spent some time learning about photography. My new setup is a Canon 60D with a 70-200 2.8L IS II lens.

I am happier with the results, but I still have a way to go, but I don't feel like my equipment is fighting me this time. This was a different gym, and the lighting was much, much worse than the previous one. Easily half the amount of light. I had a very tough time setting the proper exposure settings. I mostly used AV mode, set the aperture to 2.8 and the ISO to 3200.

I also started shooting in raw and processing them in Lightroom. Much better than jpegs.










Link Posted: 2/12/2012 9:48:23 PM EDT
These look good, given the poor light conditions you were stuck with.

At this young age, you can probably get away with the 1/200 shutter speed, but later you will need to bump it up. One of the things I do to help with the noise at high ISOs is to dial in a +0.3 EV to help boost the signal to noise ratio. If need be, the pics can be darkened in post.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 5:24:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2012 5:25:51 AM EDT by hsvhobbit]
Pics are looking very decent. Since your shooting raw it'll be easy to tweak the WB and get'em looking great. Oh yeah consider setting SS and fstop manually. Good job
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 6:37:46 AM EDT
Pics look good, but why did you completely ditch an entire setup instead of just buying a faster lens?

IIRC, you said you had a Nikon setup in the first thread.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 7:17:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2012 7:25:02 AM EDT by Svetgar]
Originally Posted By SDMF_Rebel:
Pics look good, but why did you completely ditch an entire setup instead of just buying a faster lens?

IIRC, you said you had a Nikon setup in the first thread.


Because I had a very old Nikon (D70), that needed to be replaced also. I wasn't really invested in Nikon other than a sb400 (which I have for sale here, BTW )

Canon had the better deal on the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Every review I read about the lens was stellar, and it and the Nikon version were equal in quality.

I chose the 60D largely for the flip out screen. I know it sounds like a cheesy reason, but my kids are very annoying about demanding to see the picture right after it was taken; to the point of running to the camera. Very aggravating when trying to get pictures of all 3 of them together. Now, I flip out the screen and reverse it so they can see it and no more mad dash at me each time I take a picture.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 7:21:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/13/2012 7:21:38 AM EDT by Svetgar]
doubletap
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 7:46:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Svetgar:
Originally Posted By SDMF_Rebel:
Pics look good, but why did you completely ditch an entire setup instead of just buying a faster lens?

IIRC, you said you had a Nikon setup in the first thread.


Because I had a very old Nikon (D70), that needed to be replaced also. I wasn't really invested in Nikon other than a sb400 (which I have for sale here, BTW )

Canon had the better deal on the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Every review I read about the lens was stellar, and it and the Nikon version were equal in quality.

I chose the 60D largely for the flip out screen. I know it sounds like a cheesy reason, but my kids are very annoying about demanding to see the picture right after it was taken; to the point of running to the camera. Very aggravating when trying to get pictures of all 3 of them together. Now, I flip out the screen and reverse it so they can see it and no more mad dash at me each time I take a picture.


The 7D would have been a better buy given you're going with sports. Faster AF, dual DIGIC IV processors, faster burst rate (9 fps). My friend got the 60D and I went over to his place to check it out when he got it. I didn't like how they removed the joystick controller and the PC-sync port.

But solid choice on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. That is my go to lens for portrait work (even over my 85 f/1.2L II).
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 9:36:51 AM EDT
Much improvement over the first shots, cant comment on exposure and WB my monitor at work is not calibrated. Great choice is lens, I picked one up at the end of November when B&H had them for $1974 shipped.

I recently shot some peewee hockey and had less than stellar images at anything less than 1/320s.
Link Posted: 2/13/2012 10:44:09 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ocabj:
Originally Posted By Svetgar:
Originally Posted By SDMF_Rebel:
Pics look good, but why did you completely ditch an entire setup instead of just buying a faster lens?

IIRC, you said you had a Nikon setup in the first thread.


Because I had a very old Nikon (D70), that needed to be replaced also. I wasn't really invested in Nikon other than a sb400 (which I have for sale here, BTW )

Canon had the better deal on the 70-200 f2.8 IS. Every review I read about the lens was stellar, and it and the Nikon version were equal in quality.

I chose the 60D largely for the flip out screen. I know it sounds like a cheesy reason, but my kids are very annoying about demanding to see the picture right after it was taken; to the point of running to the camera. Very aggravating when trying to get pictures of all 3 of them together. Now, I flip out the screen and reverse it so they can see it and no more mad dash at me each time I take a picture.


The 7D would have been a better buy given you're going with sports. Faster AF, dual DIGIC IV processors, faster burst rate (9 fps). My friend got the 60D and I went over to his place to check it out when he got it. I didn't like how they removed the joystick controller and the PC-sync port.

But solid choice on the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. That is my go to lens for portrait work (even over my 85 f/1.2L II).


I went back and forth between the two for a while. Like I said the flip out screen is a big deal for me, and I admit my use for it is rather odd. But I've already gotten nice pics because of it, and I don't think the loss of less than 3fps is going to hurt me that much. Also, I've found most of the hate towards the 60D was from Canon users who felt it was a sidegrade from the 50D, and while I can see their point, that doesn't really matter to me, since I've never used Canon or their joystick control.

At any rate, my long term plan is that when the update to the 7D (probably later this year) comes out, I'm going to pick that up and put magic lantern on the 60D and use it for video.

Link Posted: 2/13/2012 5:17:12 PM EDT
these are much better but for that outlay of cash they should be. I am glad you got the gear you needed to get the job done. I know that a lot of people say its not the gear that makes the photos but in some cases you need the right gear.

My buddy has the 60 you will love the articulated screen when you start taking video. It is key for that.
Link Posted: 2/14/2012 4:46:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By theskuh:
these are much better but for that outlay of cash they should be. I am glad you got the gear you needed to get the job done. I know that a lot of people say its not the gear that makes the photos but in some cases you need the right gear.

My buddy has the 60 you will love the articulated screen when you start taking video. It is key for that.


Both statements are correct to some extent. Just like shitty lighting is shitty lighting which is more important than either.

OP, keep it up and you will learn what works best for what you have to work with. Pro's use the best gear and still get a lot of junk. They have just learned not to show the junk.

Link Posted: 2/14/2012 5:21:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/14/2012 5:25:35 PM EDT by theskuh]
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By theskuh:
these are much better but for that outlay of cash they should be. I am glad you got the gear you needed to get the job done. I know that a lot of people say its not the gear that makes the photos but in some cases you need the right gear.

My buddy has the 60 you will love the articulated screen when you start taking video. It is key for that.


Both statements are correct to some extent. Just like shitty lighting is shitty lighting which is more important than either.

OP, keep it up and you will learn what works best for what you have to work with. Pro's use the best gear and still get a lot of junk. They have just learned not to show the junk.



Yeah I probably shouldn't have been speaking so broadly but for some situations not having the right stuff for the job can be a problem as in this case. I am not really sure how I would deal with not being able to use flash in this situation since I am so used to having the option to make my own light. I would get the shots but wouldn't like them.

I went to a wedding in Annapolis a few months ago and there was no flash photography allowed in the church. The light was really shit. The photographer who was pretty high end did his best but I think I would have hid somebody in the crowd with dummy camera and radio triggered flash at least for one or two key pops.



Link Posted: 2/16/2012 5:05:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By theskuh:
Originally Posted By FlashHole:
Originally Posted By theskuh:
these are much better but for that outlay of cash they should be. I am glad you got the gear you needed to get the job done. I know that a lot of people say its not the gear that makes the photos but in some cases you need the right gear.

My buddy has the 60 you will love the articulated screen when you start taking video. It is key for that.


Both statements are correct to some extent. Just like shitty lighting is shitty lighting which is more important than either.

OP, keep it up and you will learn what works best for what you have to work with. Pro's use the best gear and still get a lot of junk. They have just learned not to show the junk.



Yeah I probably shouldn't have been speaking so broadly but for some situations not having the right stuff for the job can be a problem as in this case. I am not really sure how I would deal with not being able to use flash in this situation since I am so used to having the option to make my own light. I would get the shots but wouldn't like them.

I went to a wedding in Annapolis a few months ago and there was no flash photography allowed in the church. The light was really shit. The photographer who was pretty high end did his best but I think I would have hid somebody in the crowd with dummy camera and radio triggered flash at least for one or two key pops.





Yep, sometimes you just have to do the best you can with what you are dealt. Last time I went to a hockey(Stars) game, I noticed that there are strobes in the rafters for the official game photographer. Unless you are looking directly at them, you can't spot them going off, but I guarantee you that his photos look better than the other photographer's.

Top Top