Is this impossible?
Sep 27, 2018 09:21:00 #
TRAVLR38 wrote:
There is a 20mb limit per image, so probably your raw won't upload anyway. How to post a photo:Thanks for your rapid reply. I am having trouble sending images. This is the first time I have tried to do this. The UHH program doesn't seem to want me to send more than one image at a time. No clue why, but I cannot select more than one. They would be raw anyway. I deleted most of my jpeg originals in LRCC after having made the edits I wanted. Trying to save space on hard drive.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/help/how_to_post_a_picture.jsp
.
Sep 27, 2018 09:21:38 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Actually, I was shooting with both the m10ii and the m1ii. Sorry for the confusion. The Olympus nomenclature is awkward at best.
Sep 27, 2018 09:23:05 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks Linda. One reason for my delayed reply is that I have been trying to read directions for sending images. I did not see where the limit is given.
Sep 27, 2018 09:27:29 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. I think that if any solution is possible, it is with the 75 f/1.8. this would be somewhat limiting, not being a zoom. And for fast moving subjects, nailing focus with such a narrow depth of field will be tricky. but I will try. Ordered the lens last night.
Sep 27, 2018 09:36:32 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. I have a great respect for your knowledge and willingness to help. But I am not sure that your images are very helpful in my situation. You have a lot of separation between subject and background, I suspect. And some time to get good focus. Regrettably, in soccer, as you know, the subjects move rather quickly and all too often there is little separation between the subjects and the distracting elements on the sidelines.
I suspect that I am being too optimistic about what I can capture with this lens, or any 2.8 lens with MTF for that matter. Best to take pictures with subjects close, to create physical distance from background. And avoid pictures where a cluttered background exists. All of this is rather limiting. I suspect, but am not sure, that the pros who do sports photographyalso concentrate on relatively close subjects.
I suspect that I am being too optimistic about what I can capture with this lens, or any 2.8 lens with MTF for that matter. Best to take pictures with subjects close, to create physical distance from background. And avoid pictures where a cluttered background exists. All of this is rather limiting. I suspect, but am not sure, that the pros who do sports photographyalso concentrate on relatively close subjects.
Sep 27, 2018 09:42:09 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. I mentioned the 12-100 f/4, confusingly, as an aside. I am thinking of it as a walk around lens, as the sharpness of the cumbersome 40-150 is so good. I should not have mentioned it here, as it is a distraction. I just wanted to refer to the sharpness of the best Oly lenses. I had been using the less expensive teles, and was happy with them. At least until I saw what the 2.8 could do. It should be handled with care. it is dangerously sharp.
Sep 27, 2018 09:45:28 #
TRAVLR38 wrote:
...I suspect, but am not sure, that the pros who do sports photography also concentrate on relatively close subjects.
And pros who shoot sports are often using a full frame sensor...
Sep 27, 2018 09:46:42 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. I mentioned the 12-100 f/4, confusingly, as an aside. I am thinking of it as a walk around lens, as the sharpness of the cumbersome 40-150 is so good. You are one of the hoggers I most pay attention to, as you are clearly an expert in the field.
As has been noted elsewhere, your reply this time somewhat missed the mark. Perhaps my fault for not being sufficiently clear. I don't do film. And I was shooting wide open. Shutter speed 1/1000 to 1/2000.
As has been noted elsewhere, your reply this time somewhat missed the mark. Perhaps my fault for not being sufficiently clear. I don't do film. And I was shooting wide open. Shutter speed 1/1000 to 1/2000.
Sep 27, 2018 09:47:36 #
TRAVLR38 wrote:
Thanks for your kind reply. I think that if any solution is possible, it is with the 75 f/1.8. this would be somewhat limiting, not being a zoom. And for fast moving subjects, nailing focus with such a narrow depth of field will be tricky. but I will try. Ordered the lens last night.
I think it's your best bet...you might need a ND filter if you plan on shooting at f1.8 or 2 on bright days. I don't remember what the max shutter speed is on the em10ii...but I suspect that you'll be shooting at max speed on bright days.
Other than that...the 75 is my favorite lenses that I've ever shot with. Fast, small, tack sharp wide open, and not too expensive when comparing it to other lenses (from other systems). It is the perfect portrait lens that I grab first, every time.
Sep 27, 2018 09:51:58 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. Great pix. But in my sports pictures, I dont have the advantage of choosing backgrounds and their distance from the subject. Not unless I limit severely the pictures I take to those where there is little background clutter and where the subjects are close to me. This would confine me to only about an eighth of the field or less. Which is probably the only real solution, except perhaps a faster lens.
Sep 27, 2018 09:57:07 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. I mentioned the 12-100 f/4, confusingly, as an aside. I am thinking of it as a walk around lens, as the sharpness of the cumbersome 40-150 is so good.
I am sure the 75mm 1.8 will be equally sharp. I have ordered one and will soon get to try it out. i am happy to hear your opinion of the lens.
I am sure the 75mm 1.8 will be equally sharp. I have ordered one and will soon get to try it out. i am happy to hear your opinion of the lens.
Sep 27, 2018 10:01:29 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply.
I know that they use ff cameras. But I am reluctant to move to a full frame and invest in a $2000 or so lens for that would be only about 10% of my photography. Reasons are expense (obviously), the unwieldy size of the gear, and learning a new system. I will continue to work on a work-around. I have already received some good ideas in answer to my post.
I know that they use ff cameras. But I am reluctant to move to a full frame and invest in a $2000 or so lens for that would be only about 10% of my photography. Reasons are expense (obviously), the unwieldy size of the gear, and learning a new system. I will continue to work on a work-around. I have already received some good ideas in answer to my post.
Sep 27, 2018 10:06:59 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. These are great pix. Congrats. But what I want is tack sharp pictures of the athletes with a blurred background. I am not sure whether soccer players move fast enough to blur the background, but panning is something to try. And not wasted effort--practice in panning would be a good thing. But not likely useful for volleyball; the players don't move that fast or in such a constant direction.
Sep 27, 2018 10:12:44 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply.
I was shooting wide open. I think the answer will be to select subject close to me but farther from the distracting elements. Regrettably, much of the action, at least in soccer, seems to be away from me. Analagous, in reverse, to smoke from the grill; it seems to follow you wherever you go. LOL
I was shooting wide open. I think the answer will be to select subject close to me but farther from the distracting elements. Regrettably, much of the action, at least in soccer, seems to be away from me. Analagous, in reverse, to smoke from the grill; it seems to follow you wherever you go. LOL
Sep 27, 2018 10:15:56 #
TRAVLR38
Loc: CENTRAL PA
Thanks for your kind reply. I am with you on the first part. But compressing the background should bring the distracting background into sharper focus.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.