hey there, this thread looks awesome!
Right now I'm shooting with a Canon T2i and kit lens, aswell as radiopopper transmitters with a Canon flash.
I've had my nose burried in Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" book, learning about getting correct and unique exposures. Only thing is, when I go to shoot with the flash, I find myself just winging it, since all my previous exposure calculations are out the window with the addition of the flash. I just end up doing alot of trial and error til something turns out looking alright.
It's a big topic to cover, but if someone could point me in the right direction of some tutorials or reading to help me out with incorporating external flashes, that would be awesome.
Here's one of my photos, that I feel could be better with some knowledge. Mind you, I have little post processing, no lightroom or PS, just little free programs. Maybe that may be a little issue. Getting a macbook for school in a couple months, so I will put some programs on that.
Thanks!
I was recently in Bishop, CA shooting some Rock Climbing. I went out to shoot with a few friends and hang out but why I was really there was to shoot an 8 year old boy who is one of the strongest climbers his age. Every time light was good on a climb or I was set up someone would drag him to another climb... I finally talked to him about it and he understood that I need some time to get the shots we are after for his potential magazine article. Fittingly weather rolled in and forced us off climbing for a day. Leaving half a day to get the "money shot". We get out to the climbing area the next morning and he runs off and I figured he was just going to warm up, Not true, He ran off to do his project climb, Low Rider which is V10. For any of you that know climbing at all you will know V10 if fucked up hard, and he is 8!
By the time I made it to the dark damp cave where his project was he was just on the last moves of finishing it... My thought was fine, We will stage it, fine with me. By the time I had my pack off his dad came down demanding they leave. he realized that I needed the shot so he gave me 5 min to set up, find the angle and shoot it.
It didn't happen, I got a shot but nothing great or even remotely good... We will see if the article runs, but now the possibility of it being the cover story is gone. A good part of the fault falls on me, even still, very frustrating. Yet another trip coming out of my already shallow pockets.
hey there, this thread looks awesome!
Right now I'm shooting with a Canon T2i and kit lens, aswell as radiopopper transmitters with a Canon flash.
I've...
hey there, this thread looks awesome!
Right now I'm shooting with a Canon T2i and kit lens, aswell as radiopopper transmitters with a Canon flash.
I've had my nose burried in Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" book, learning about getting correct and unique exposures. Only thing is, when I go to shoot with the flash, I find myself just winging it, since all my previous exposure calculations are out the window with the addition of the flash. I just end up doing alot of trial and error til something turns out looking alright.
It's a big topic to cover, but if someone could point me in the right direction of some tutorials or reading to help me out with incorporating external flashes, that would be awesome.
Here's one of my photos, that I feel could be better with some knowledge. Mind you, I have little post processing, no lightroom or PS, just little free programs. Maybe that may be a little issue. Getting a macbook for school in a couple months, so I will put some programs on that.
Thanks!
Best tip I ever got was to set up your shot like you think you want it, get it all ready to go with framing, settings, flashes, whatever. Then right before you take the shot, look 180 degrees behind you as it's likely to be a better shot than what you just spent all that time setting up and manipulating.
It doesn't always work but I'm still surprised at how often it does yield results about 5 years after first trying it out. The point is that whatever idea you came up with- it's probably corny. You'll get better results if you surrender some of the control over your shots to nature and just let good accidents happen to your shooting. The more constricting you are with your photos, the more amazing things you will miss completely by not allowing yourself to be open to things you have absolutely no control over.
Since I´m most probably not as well known as Flipper, Sven or Stikman, I´ll introduce myself. Briefly, promise. My Name is Philipp and I´ve been on and off shooting world cups (all disciplines) since 2007, pretty much exclusively in europe though. I´m studying photojournalism and documentary photography here in Germany, so shooting world cups actually combines my love for bikes, travel and photography.
I´m not sure whether you lot care what I shoot with. Equipment´s actually not that important I think - but there are a few things to know about the brands in question. My general view on the topic is that, in the end, it comes down to taste. Just like you like your shoes brown, black or pink or whatever. I prefer mine black and with sticky rubber but that´s another topic. Usually, Nikon is known to be more expensive but has a few advantages when it comes to AF, noise reduction (with certain models) and build quality (only certain models again). Judging from what people walk around with on worldcups, it´s a very close call. Just like I said, depends on taste.
Since I´ve started out on Canon and can´t really figure out how a nikon works (read: couldn´t be bothered yet), I´m still on Canon. I had the incredible luck to get a pretty much new 1D MK3 to replace my worn-out 20D in early 2009 and that´s what I´m shooting with ever since. When it comes to lenses, I like it cheap & light - at least most of the time. I bought a Canon 50 1.8 (yeah, the plastic toy) in 2005 for almost no money and it serves me well up to this day. I love it. I also love the Canon 70-200 4L Spomer talked about, for the same reasons. It is light, cheap, fairly small and on top of that sharp as ****. I also own a Canon 16-35 2.8 and a Sigma 24-70 2.8. I usually leave the 24-70 in the media center because it´s fairly heavy and not of much use for how I shoot races. Although it´s actually worth it´s weight in Gold when it comes down to documentary work. I also do a lot of Newspaper work with it. The 16-35 is, together with the 70-200, doing the "bread and butter" business when it comes to sports.
Over time, you´ll find out where the "sweet spot" of every zoom lens is. Frequency charts also help a lot. The 70-200, for example, has its spot at about 135mm and stopped down to f8 or thereabouts. Same goes for most other lenses, you just have to find out where that spot is and you´ll be surprised how sharp it can be. Although that usually calls for a lot of light and the right environment/spot.
Jeez, I think I´ll leave it at that for now. Very cool to have that thread BTW!
So I was pretty set on buying the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the next little bit, but now that's two guys saying go for the Canon 70-200 f4. The Sigma is $150 more, which isnt a huge deal. What do you guys think? I've read the Sigma is has pretty fast autofocus, good for action shooting, but may not be as sharp. But then the sigma also has the extra stop. What do ya'll think? Only other factor may be weight in favor of the f4, but not sure.
@matt, i have no idea how the sigma lens compares to anything else, but personally, the light weight lens is a big plus for me, as is budget. when i started, i carried everything i owned on my back at a race/event. now, i'm the exact opposite and run a pretty simple setup. that's a style preference i've grown into and now i don't have a major need for a 2.8 lens, knowing how i shoot.
before the incredible ISO ranges on digital cameras, that extra stop of the 2.8 meant a lot more to photographers working in low light situations. now, the cameras can make up for your lack of aperture. there is a bit more to it than just amount of light let in (like image quality when the lens is wide open), but it's something worth thinking about.
if you can try out the sigma and the F4 canon, i think it'd be good for you before deciding one way or the other.
So I was pretty set on buying the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the next little bit, but now that's two guys saying go for the Canon...
So I was pretty set on buying the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the next little bit, but now that's two guys saying go for the Canon 70-200 f4. The Sigma is $150 more, which isnt a huge deal. What do you guys think? I've read the Sigma is has pretty fast autofocus, good for action shooting, but may not be as sharp. But then the sigma also has the extra stop. What do ya'll think? Only other factor may be weight in favor of the f4, but not sure.
That´s a tough call. One of my best friends who also happens to be a photog owns that Sigma as well and I have to say it´s very nice indeed. What you get, apart from the stop more, is mainly less. And by less I mean less depth of field which can be very desirable, especially with a smaller APS-C sensor like the prosumer models (7D, 60D, 550D, 1000D etc.) got one. The smaller the sensor, the bigger the depth of field.
If it´s sharp (sigmas sometimes get it a bit wrong) and you don´t mind the extra weight, go for it. If you´d like a few hundred grams less and don´t care for that extra stop, get the canon. I also recommend going somewhere you can touch them and get a feeling for what they´re like in reality. And maybe read some reviews, I found dpreview.com to be very helpful with certain things. No idea if they´ve reviewed both of these lenses though.
Alright photo gods, talk to me about filters. UV or non UV? Single coat or multi coat? Does price typically indicate quality when it comes to filters? Any brands you highly recommend?
I'm just looking to cap my lenses without losing any quality or gaining crazy flares from the sun...
I'm no photo-god.
But UV for sure on anything telephoto. I run UVs on everything (except my fisheye) just because it's a layer of defense. Multi-coat is better for preventing flares. Price is relative. A good filter will run you a good amount of money but what really jacks the price up is getting a "thin" filter that you typically need on really wide lenses to keep from seeing the edge of the filter in your shot, or to go on video cameras and fit under lens hood/matte boxes. Circular polarizers are expensive no matter what you do but they are awesome for wide lenses.
One way to think about it is that you spent a relative heap of money on "nice" lenses (by which I mean, nice enough for your use, whatever that may be) so do you really want to put a budget brand hencho en china and hawked on sketchy ebay store filter on the front of your nice lens?
Cookin filters are nice and I've always had good luck with those. I never spend so much that I'd crap my pants if it fell or got roosted with a rock but I spend enough to justify it being "as nice" as the lens I'm putting it on in my mind.
So I was pretty set on buying the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the next little bit, but now that's two guys saying go for the Canon...
So I was pretty set on buying the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 in the next little bit, but now that's two guys saying go for the Canon 70-200 f4. The Sigma is $150 more, which isnt a huge deal. What do you guys think? I've read the Sigma is has pretty fast autofocus, good for action shooting, but may not be as sharp. But then the sigma also has the extra stop. What do ya'll think? Only other factor may be weight in favor of the f4, but not sure.
@Matt,
I had a buddy who used one for for awhile shooting team sports. He liked it and it did do its job, but the photos weren't always the sharpest. But is was also an older so the newer ones could be better.
If you are worried about depth of field and shooting in some lower light I would go with the Sigma (Personal preference). The 70-200 f4 is a nice lens as well.
If you are shooting anything else besides mountain biking/ extreme sports, such as team sports I would get the Sigma. Photojournalism, Teamsports, papers stuff like that are huge sticklers on back grounds. They usually don't want to see anything unless it is significant to the photo.
I'm no photo-god.
But UV for sure on anything telephoto. I run UVs on everything (except my fisheye) just because it's a layer of defense. Multi-coat...
I'm no photo-god.
But UV for sure on anything telephoto. I run UVs on everything (except my fisheye) just because it's a layer of defense. Multi-coat is better for preventing flares. Price is relative. A good filter will run you a good amount of money but what really jacks the price up is getting a "thin" filter that you typically need on really wide lenses to keep from seeing the edge of the filter in your shot, or to go on video cameras and fit under lens hood/matte boxes. Circular polarizers are expensive no matter what you do but they are awesome for wide lenses.
One way to think about it is that you spent a relative heap of money on "nice" lenses (by which I mean, nice enough for your use, whatever that may be) so do you really want to put a budget brand hencho en china and hawked on sketchy ebay store filter on the front of your nice lens?
Cookin filters are nice and I've always had good luck with those. I never spend so much that I'd crap my pants if it fell or got roosted with a rock but I spend enough to justify it being "as nice" as the lens I'm putting it on in my mind.
I'm gunna have to try to get my hands on them to hold them first, and see if I can find some gallery's with shots from them. Only thing holding me back on canon is not getting the 2.8. Everything else just seems more better (lighter, sharper, Canon quality) at a cheaper price with the canon.
All you photo guys, is the extra stop of 2.8 pretty critical to your mountain bike photography? I've never shot with any quality glass, and dont know if I'll start shooting and always find myself wishing I had that extra stop, even for a little sharpness sacrifice. I also dont plan on making large prints (at the moment) so maybe the sharpness wont be as noticeable to me as some of you guys.
Thanks dudes for the lens help!
I'm gunna have to try to get my hands on them to hold them first, and see if I can...
Thanks dudes for the lens help!
I'm gunna have to try to get my hands on them to hold them first, and see if I can find some gallery's with shots from them. Only thing holding me back on canon is not getting the 2.8. Everything else just seems more better (lighter, sharper, Canon quality) at a cheaper price with the canon.
All you photo guys, is the extra stop of 2.8 pretty critical to your mountain bike photography? I've never shot with any quality glass, and dont know if I'll start shooting and always find myself wishing I had that extra stop, even for a little sharpness sacrifice. I also dont plan on making large prints (at the moment) so maybe the sharpness wont be as noticeable to me as some of you guys.
Decisions decisions!
I hardly shoot more open the f4 to be honest. I have 70-200 2.8 non IS.
hey there, this thread looks awesome!
Right now I'm shooting with a Canon T2i and kit lens, aswell as radiopopper transmitters with a Canon flash.
I've...
hey there, this thread looks awesome!
Right now I'm shooting with a Canon T2i and kit lens, aswell as radiopopper transmitters with a Canon flash.
I've had my nose burried in Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" book, learning about getting correct and unique exposures. Only thing is, when I go to shoot with the flash, I find myself just winging it, since all my previous exposure calculations are out the window with the addition of the flash. I just end up doing alot of trial and error til something turns out looking alright.
It's a big topic to cover, but if someone could point me in the right direction of some tutorials or reading to help me out with incorporating external flashes, that would be awesome.
Here's one of my photos, that I feel could be better with some knowledge. Mind you, I have little post processing, no lightroom or PS, just little free programs. Maybe that may be a little issue. Getting a macbook for school in a couple months, so I will put some programs on that.
Thanks!
McNally adds a bunch of behind the scene set ups, ideas and theories. Great source of industry tricks from a very talented and experienced photographer. It can get a bit technical so like JP suggested use Strobist.com for a good basis and dictionary...
1.) The light source is a bit hot. Either pull it back from the subject or turn it down a bit.
2.) Think of lighting like a triangle. From the line of sight of your camera turn hard left at your subject (or right 90 degrees). Figure out appropriate distance/height of flash and this is a good basis to start from for flash placement. Triangle is completed with line from flash back to you.This will create a nice cross lit feel. If you want more shadow fill move the flash towards you (90 degrees).
Remember when moving your flash to move it on an arc from your subject as distance effects light source strength. Or just reset the flash output (easy with TTL)
Just a humble lover of photography. Thanks for this blog.
Check out this guy's blog.
http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/category/lighting/
McNally adds a bunch of behind the scene set ups...
Just a humble lover of photography. Thanks for this blog.
McNally adds a bunch of behind the scene set ups, ideas and theories. Great source of industry tricks from a very talented and experienced photographer. It can get a bit technical so like JP suggested use Strobist.com for a good basis and dictionary...
1.) The light source is a bit hot. Either pull it back from the subject or turn it down a bit.
2.) Think of lighting like a triangle. From the line of sight of your camera turn hard left at your subject (or right 90 degrees). Figure out appropriate distance/height of flash and this is a good basis to start from for flash placement. Triangle is completed with line from flash back to you.This will create a nice cross lit feel. If you want more shadow fill move the flash towards you (90 degrees).
Remember when moving your flash to move it on an arc from your subject as distance effects light source strength. Or just reset the flash output (easy with TTL)
Who uses what for a screen calibrator. Non of my work looks the same when it gets published or on different computer screens
I´m using a friends´ ColorMunki. The corresponding application works well and with a little practice you´re done in about 15 Minutes for a dual-screen Setup. Although Calibration isn´t all and everything, a consistant workflow is just as important. And it gets even more difficult when your work gets published - everybody uses different papers, inks, printing systems and so on.
Get your workflow straight, use a good Display that gets beyond sRGB (=> larger gamut) and hope for the best when it comes to printing. You can only control so much.
/edit: Just recently, I had a client who re-edited all pictures I sent because he said the colors were "wrong". Turns out the guy doesn´t use color management and doesn´t own a display that goes even near sRGB.
Lot's of good info on this thread. Here's some things I've learned.
Nikon vs Cannon vs whoever, doesn't really matter. Use what suits you. What is important is knowing every function of your camera and using it as though it were an appendage of your body. Reading the whole manual, playing with every function, and taking thousands of photos are the best ways to do this.
Lenses and pricey gear; it's generally better to stay in you budget and shoot accordingly to the gear you have in hand. My $2500 tele-zoom takes amazing photos, but so does my 35mm 2.0 (older model Nikon) that only costs a few hundred bucks. I love my 35 2.0 prime for it's light weight and beatuiful life like photos, but also use it accordingly.
UV filters are goodness, they've saved some very expensive lenses of mine from flying pebbles and the trash can. When used right, a good circular polarizer brings out amazing color saturation and chops ugly glare (K.Shiz gave me that tip several years ago).
I really like Lightroom for post-work, and don't even use Photoshop CS anything, but then again I'm not a fan of photoshopped sequences or HDR either- Get it right in camera!
But that's all nuts and bolts. Personally, I think good photos are made from experience (taking thousands and thousands of photos) and knowledge of the craft being applied to planning, homework, extra effort, astute attention to details, having your head on a swivel to be observant of your surroundings, and a little bit (but sometimes a lot) of luck. Make your photos interesting, not something that 2000 other people standing on the sidelines already saw from the same perspective.
I also think there's a lot of value from peer review and critique on photo forums to learn how to make your photos better.
How do you stay creative with your shots? I sometimes feel like I'm taking the same old shots just in a different location and I can get a bit frustrated sometimes. Any tips to get inspired?
BTW, I'm liking K.Shiz's idea of setting up, then turning 180°.
rusty, that´s one of the "evergreen" questions. Especially at well-known venues like Schladming, Fort Bill or Mont Saint Anne. The course usually doesnt change as much over the years and thus you have to reinvent yourself every season. Weather can change a venue quite dramatically - but often it´s just the same. Which, in the end, leaves it mostly to you to come up with new ways to tell the story. Some just use other angles, some buy fancy new lenses to change the looks and some use different lighting to make a different picture. Or all of those.
Inspiration should come while at work, unless you have a bright moment and write it down to try out the next day. And I think that seeing it as a challenge of sorts (instead of seeing it as a problem) helps aswell. Don´t just think outside the box - know the box from every angle and then shoot your way back in.
I'm not a camera guy, but I just saw an article in the Atlantic about a new kind of camera called a Lytro that basically shoots the entire depth of field so you can go back later and decide where you want the focus to be. Close, far, or everywhere. It's similar to an idea I had a while ago.
I'm not a camera guy, but I just saw an article in the Atlantic about a new kind of camera called a Lytro that basically shoots...
I'm not a camera guy, but I just saw an article in the Atlantic about a new kind of camera called a Lytro that basically shoots the entire depth of field so you can go back later and decide where you want the focus to be. Close, far, or everywhere. It's similar to an idea I had a while ago.
Yeah, the images out of it are egh. Not so sharp zoomed all the way in. Now say in theory it has the ability to shoot at maybe F64 and then selective focus which can easily be down with a Layer in PS to blur other elements then the images would be sharp. But being that stopped down even at noon would have a slow shutter. I think down the road small cameras will go this route. Do not think it is there yet.
I am holding out for the Pentax for studio, commercial and maybe the 1Dx for sports. But if money allows and RED releases the 65MP DSMC camera I may jump.......hope it is weatherproof!
MTBlabel teamed up with Adidas Eyewear to create the "Addias Eyewear photo Challenge"
The rules are pretty easy : send us your best pic of freeride Everybody can win
here's 4 goggles :
I am fairly new to photography and am looking to get a camera (probably a DSLR) I would mostly be photographing mountain biking as well as BMX. I usually will be shooting in a wooded area so the light can be variable. I also am very concerned with video quality as I would like to be able to make short films of riding (2-4 minutes). I am looking to spend between $800-$1300 and I do not know to much about what kind of set up I can get with that money and do not want to be ripped off. I was offered a Sony Alpha 55 used with two lenses a 18-55 and a 75-200 as well as an 8gb wifi card. My concern with the sony is that there wont be as many lenses or other accessories I might find myself wanting.
Alright photo gods, talk to me about filters. UV or non UV? Single coat or multi coat? Does price typically indicate quality when it comes to...
Alright photo gods, talk to me about filters. UV or non UV? Single coat or multi coat? Does price typically indicate quality when it comes to filters? Any brands you highly recommend?
I'm just looking to cap my lenses without losing any quality or gaining crazy flares from the sun...
I have tried Cokin and Hoya but have settled on B&W. You'd probably be better off buying something like a B&W Kaesemann XS-Pro Circular Polarizer (which is what I use). Have a read of what Bryan Carnathon has to say about them and what they actually do
Have any of you tried shooting with Olympus/Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras? I was reading some reviews on them the other night and read a lot about how much lighter an entire kit can be and all that good stuff but figured I would ask and see if any of you had any hands on experience.
Have any of you tried shooting with Olympus/Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras? I was reading some reviews on them the other night and read a lot...
Have any of you tried shooting with Olympus/Panasonic Micro Four Thirds cameras? I was reading some reviews on them the other night and read a lot about how much lighter an entire kit can be and all that good stuff but figured I would ask and see if any of you had any hands on experience.
My son has splashed out & brought an Olympus OMD and he loves it. He loves it so much he has sold his Nikon D7000 kit.
From there you can navigate to other test sets as well.
He says it does not do all what his Nikon used to, but the size & weight saving is well worth any downsides. I also know another guy who sold his Canon FF kit that he uses for wedding and has also gone Olympus. He reckons he's never looked back, which is a pretty big statement to make. I have tried my sons, yes it is compact, feels very well built & just oozes quality. Everything feels just right, but I'm not so sure I will buy one. I'm not ready to give up my 5DII just yet!
Right now I'm shooting with a Canon T2i and kit lens, aswell as radiopopper transmitters with a Canon flash.
I've had my nose burried in Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" book, learning about getting correct and unique exposures. Only thing is, when I go to shoot with the flash, I find myself just winging it, since all my previous exposure calculations are out the window with the addition of the flash. I just end up doing alot of trial and error til something turns out looking alright.
It's a big topic to cover, but if someone could point me in the right direction of some tutorials or reading to help me out with incorporating external flashes, that would be awesome.
Here's one of my photos, that I feel could be better with some knowledge. Mind you, I have little post processing, no lightroom or PS, just little free programs. Maybe that may be a little issue. Getting a macbook for school in a couple months, so I will put some programs on that.
Thanks!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/50521964@N02/4864413576/in/set-72157624537…
I have a quick rant for you lot.
I was recently in Bishop, CA shooting some Rock Climbing. I went out to shoot with a few friends and hang out but why I was really there was to shoot an 8 year old boy who is one of the strongest climbers his age. Every time light was good on a climb or I was set up someone would drag him to another climb... I finally talked to him about it and he understood that I need some time to get the shots we are after for his potential magazine article. Fittingly weather rolled in and forced us off climbing for a day. Leaving half a day to get the "money shot". We get out to the climbing area the next morning and he runs off and I figured he was just going to warm up, Not true, He ran off to do his project climb, Low Rider which is V10. For any of you that know climbing at all you will know V10 if fucked up hard, and he is 8!
By the time I made it to the dark damp cave where his project was he was just on the last moves of finishing it... My thought was fine, We will stage it, fine with me. By the time I had my pack off his dad came down demanding they leave. he realized that I needed the shot so he gave me 5 min to set up, find the angle and shoot it.
It didn't happen, I got a shot but nothing great or even remotely good... We will see if the article runs, but now the possibility of it being the cover story is gone. A good part of the fault falls on me, even still, very frustrating. Yet another trip coming out of my already shallow pockets.
It doesn't always work but I'm still surprised at how often it does yield results about 5 years after first trying it out. The point is that whatever idea you came up with- it's probably corny. You'll get better results if you surrender some of the control over your shots to nature and just let good accidents happen to your shooting. The more constricting you are with your photos, the more amazing things you will miss completely by not allowing yourself to be open to things you have absolutely no control over.
Since I´m most probably not as well known as Flipper, Sven or Stikman, I´ll introduce myself. Briefly, promise. My Name is Philipp and I´ve been on and off shooting world cups (all disciplines) since 2007, pretty much exclusively in europe though. I´m studying photojournalism and documentary photography here in Germany, so shooting world cups actually combines my love for bikes, travel and photography.
I´m not sure whether you lot care what I shoot with. Equipment´s actually not that important I think - but there are a few things to know about the brands in question. My general view on the topic is that, in the end, it comes down to taste. Just like you like your shoes brown, black or pink or whatever. I prefer mine black and with sticky rubber but that´s another topic. Usually, Nikon is known to be more expensive but has a few advantages when it comes to AF, noise reduction (with certain models) and build quality (only certain models again). Judging from what people walk around with on worldcups, it´s a very close call. Just like I said, depends on taste.
Since I´ve started out on Canon and can´t really figure out how a nikon works (read: couldn´t be bothered yet), I´m still on Canon. I had the incredible luck to get a pretty much new 1D MK3 to replace my worn-out 20D in early 2009 and that´s what I´m shooting with ever since. When it comes to lenses, I like it cheap & light - at least most of the time. I bought a Canon 50 1.8 (yeah, the plastic toy) in 2005 for almost no money and it serves me well up to this day. I love it. I also love the Canon 70-200 4L Spomer talked about, for the same reasons. It is light, cheap, fairly small and on top of that sharp as ****. I also own a Canon 16-35 2.8 and a Sigma 24-70 2.8. I usually leave the 24-70 in the media center because it´s fairly heavy and not of much use for how I shoot races. Although it´s actually worth it´s weight in Gold when it comes down to documentary work. I also do a lot of Newspaper work with it. The 16-35 is, together with the 70-200, doing the "bread and butter" business when it comes to sports.
Over time, you´ll find out where the "sweet spot" of every zoom lens is. Frequency charts also help a lot. The 70-200, for example, has its spot at about 135mm and stopped down to f8 or thereabouts. Same goes for most other lenses, you just have to find out where that spot is and you´ll be surprised how sharp it can be. Although that usually calls for a lot of light and the right environment/spot.
Jeez, I think I´ll leave it at that for now. Very cool to have that thread BTW!
@matt, i have no idea how the sigma lens compares to anything else, but personally, the light weight lens is a big plus for me, as is budget. when i started, i carried everything i owned on my back at a race/event. now, i'm the exact opposite and run a pretty simple setup. that's a style preference i've grown into and now i don't have a major need for a 2.8 lens, knowing how i shoot.
before the incredible ISO ranges on digital cameras, that extra stop of the 2.8 meant a lot more to photographers working in low light situations. now, the cameras can make up for your lack of aperture. there is a bit more to it than just amount of light let in (like image quality when the lens is wide open), but it's something worth thinking about.
if you can try out the sigma and the F4 canon, i think it'd be good for you before deciding one way or the other.
If it´s sharp (sigmas sometimes get it a bit wrong) and you don´t mind the extra weight, go for it. If you´d like a few hundred grams less and don´t care for that extra stop, get the canon. I also recommend going somewhere you can touch them and get a feeling for what they´re like in reality. And maybe read some reviews, I found dpreview.com to be very helpful with certain things. No idea if they´ve reviewed both of these lenses though.
There´s no bad choice here, really.
I'm just looking to cap my lenses without losing any quality or gaining crazy flares from the sun...
But UV for sure on anything telephoto. I run UVs on everything (except my fisheye) just because it's a layer of defense. Multi-coat is better for preventing flares. Price is relative. A good filter will run you a good amount of money but what really jacks the price up is getting a "thin" filter that you typically need on really wide lenses to keep from seeing the edge of the filter in your shot, or to go on video cameras and fit under lens hood/matte boxes. Circular polarizers are expensive no matter what you do but they are awesome for wide lenses.
One way to think about it is that you spent a relative heap of money on "nice" lenses (by which I mean, nice enough for your use, whatever that may be) so do you really want to put a budget brand hencho en china and hawked on sketchy ebay store filter on the front of your nice lens?
Cookin filters are nice and I've always had good luck with those. I never spend so much that I'd crap my pants if it fell or got roosted with a rock but I spend enough to justify it being "as nice" as the lens I'm putting it on in my mind.
I had a buddy who used one for for awhile shooting team sports. He liked it and it did do its job, but the photos weren't always the sharpest. But is was also an older so the newer ones could be better.
If you are worried about depth of field and shooting in some lower light I would go with the Sigma (Personal preference). The 70-200 f4 is a nice lens as well.
If you are shooting anything else besides mountain biking/ extreme sports, such as team sports I would get the Sigma. Photojournalism, Teamsports, papers stuff like that are huge sticklers on back grounds. They usually don't want to see anything unless it is significant to the photo.
.
I'm gunna have to try to get my hands on them to hold them first, and see if I can find some gallery's with shots from them. Only thing holding me back on canon is not getting the 2.8. Everything else just seems more better (lighter, sharper, Canon quality) at a cheaper price with the canon.
All you photo guys, is the extra stop of 2.8 pretty critical to your mountain bike photography? I've never shot with any quality glass, and dont know if I'll start shooting and always find myself wishing I had that extra stop, even for a little sharpness sacrifice. I also dont plan on making large prints (at the moment) so maybe the sharpness wont be as noticeable to me as some of you guys.
Decisions decisions!
Check out this guy's blog.
http://www.joemcnally.com/blog/category/lighting/
McNally adds a bunch of behind the scene set ups, ideas and theories. Great source of industry tricks from a very talented and experienced photographer. It can get a bit technical so like JP suggested use Strobist.com for a good basis and dictionary...
http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html
Lighting recommendation,
1.) The light source is a bit hot. Either pull it back from the subject or turn it down a bit.
2.) Think of lighting like a triangle. From the line of sight of your camera turn hard left at your subject (or right 90 degrees). Figure out appropriate distance/height of flash and this is a good basis to start from for flash placement. Triangle is completed with line from flash back to you.This will create a nice cross lit feel. If you want more shadow fill move the flash towards you (90 degrees).
Remember when moving your flash to move it on an arc from your subject as distance effects light source strength. Or just reset the flash output (easy with TTL)
My work, but didn't use any flash fill here:
http://blogs.bikemag.com/news/2010-chatel-mountain-style-retrospective/
Criticism welcome.
Who uses what for a screen calibrator. Non of my work looks the same when it gets published or on different computer screens
Get your workflow straight, use a good Display that gets beyond sRGB (=> larger gamut) and hope for the best when it comes to printing. You can only control so much.
/edit: Just recently, I had a client who re-edited all pictures I sent because he said the colors were "wrong". Turns out the guy doesn´t use color management and doesn´t own a display that goes even near sRGB.
The friendly folks at ECI (http://www.eci.org/doku.php?id=en:start) provide a few papers on how to do it right in their download area. Complete beginners might want to start at wikipedia though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_management
Nikon vs Cannon vs whoever, doesn't really matter. Use what suits you. What is important is knowing every function of your camera and using it as though it were an appendage of your body. Reading the whole manual, playing with every function, and taking thousands of photos are the best ways to do this.
Lenses and pricey gear; it's generally better to stay in you budget and shoot accordingly to the gear you have in hand. My $2500 tele-zoom takes amazing photos, but so does my 35mm 2.0 (older model Nikon) that only costs a few hundred bucks. I love my 35 2.0 prime for it's light weight and beatuiful life like photos, but also use it accordingly.
UV filters are goodness, they've saved some very expensive lenses of mine from flying pebbles and the trash can. When used right, a good circular polarizer brings out amazing color saturation and chops ugly glare (K.Shiz gave me that tip several years ago).
I really like Lightroom for post-work, and don't even use Photoshop CS anything, but then again I'm not a fan of photoshopped sequences or HDR either- Get it right in camera!
But that's all nuts and bolts. Personally, I think good photos are made from experience (taking thousands and thousands of photos) and knowledge of the craft being applied to planning, homework, extra effort, astute attention to details, having your head on a swivel to be observant of your surroundings, and a little bit (but sometimes a lot) of luck. Make your photos interesting, not something that 2000 other people standing on the sidelines already saw from the same perspective.
I also think there's a lot of value from peer review and critique on photo forums to learn how to make your photos better.
How do you stay creative with your shots? I sometimes feel like I'm taking the same old shots just in a different location and I can get a bit frustrated sometimes. Any tips to get inspired?
BTW, I'm liking K.Shiz's idea of setting up, then turning 180°.
Inspiration should come while at work, unless you have a bright moment and write it down to try out the next day. And I think that seeing it as a challenge of sorts (instead of seeing it as a problem) helps aswell. Don´t just think outside the box - know the box from every angle and then shoot your way back in.
I am holding out for the Pentax for studio, commercial and maybe the 1Dx for sports. But if money allows and RED releases the 65MP DSMC camera I may jump.......hope it is weatherproof!
MTBlabel teamed up with Adidas Eyewear to create the "Addias Eyewear photo Challenge"
The rules are pretty easy : send us your best pic of freeride Everybody can win
here's 4 goggles :
http://www.mtblabel.com/en/headlines/info-adidas-eyewear-photo-challeng…
Thanks!
http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCR8HvtyHs2n9ZOJf8SgvT2g?feature=watch
subscripe me please
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Circular-Polarizer-Filters.a…
Some of those are made with an Olympus E-M5 I think.
Cheers,
Vanja
Have a look at some of his test shots http://www.flickr.com/photos/mick-gardiner/sets/72157639681350233/
From there you can navigate to other test sets as well.
He says it does not do all what his Nikon used to, but the size & weight saving is well worth any downsides. I also know another guy who sold his Canon FF kit that he uses for wedding and has also gone Olympus. He reckons he's never looked back, which is a pretty big statement to make. I have tried my sons, yes it is compact, feels very well built & just oozes quality. Everything feels just right, but I'm not so sure I will buy one. I'm not ready to give up my 5DII just yet!
Post a reply to: General Photography Talk