Posts for: barry.lapoint
Mar 19, 2015 11:56:38 #
kimmosley wrote:
Does anyone use this on a Canon 5D Mark III?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Pancake-Cleaning-Digital-Cameras/dp/B008D5RH14/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top It looks cool. Even autofocus. Im thinking of a wider lens and don't know about how sharp it is. The size seems great.
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Pancake-Cleaning-Digital-Cameras/dp/B008D5RH14/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top It looks cool. Even autofocus. Im thinking of a wider lens and don't know about how sharp it is. The size seems great.
I use it mostly for video. Works well. Haven't really noticed it being soft. I do, however, really appreciate how it silently focuses without introducing noise into the audio track. I use it with a Canon 1Dx.
Jan 23, 2015 12:45:48 #
Practice does not necessarily make perfect. Practice "with purpose" makes perfect and patients...wow, that a big one. You have to have the patients of an oyster!
Jan 23, 2015 12:39:32 #
Chefneil wrote:
A friend is letting me take a few pics of his new ... (show quote)
If this shoot is just very informal I wouldn't read too much into it. I'd try to have fun with it. If its inside set up a couple off camera strobes, if its outside that an easy one. Don't have the model face into the sun (squint is usually not a good look), use a fill flash to fill in the shadows. If its a cloudy day you've got it made. Don't need anything extra. Try a few unusual angles.
Jan 22, 2015 16:03:02 #
Clicker2014 wrote:
[/quote]Thanks for hosting!!! Great challenge! I am goin... (show quote)
I use Photoshop CC to reduce grain, when needed. It is in the RAW Editor.
Jan 22, 2015 15:04:25 #
CraigFair wrote:
Here are 2 examples of what ISO can help bring in a Photo. Each where shot with the same Outfit at the same exposure and F stop.
Nikon D600 with Tamron 150-600mm
@550mm
30sec.
f/6.3
Nikon D600 with Tamron 150-600mm
@550mm
30sec.
f/6.3
Very nicely done!
Jan 22, 2015 14:12:29 #
Jimbo9948 wrote:
the lighting does stink!!!! Second problem is the lights are sort of low so lens glare become a factor even with a hood. This would be a great place to hold a photo challenge of my own LOL.
Indeed. Those night and indoor sports shots are always a challenge! Wish they could all be in the daylight with a light overcast sky (HUGE softball).
Jan 22, 2015 13:42:53 #
Jimbo9948 wrote:
Hi lhammer43! br Being a sports photographer I fin... (show quote)
Wow Jimbo! 12.5K ISO is pretty high. That must be one really dark stadium! Looks like its only lit from one side as well. No wonder its dark....great camera as too. I'm good up to about ISO 10K then it starts to grain up a bit. I'm shooting a Canon 1DX. This shot F4 @ 1/500, 5,000 ISO, 70-200 with 1.4x teleconverter.
Jan 22, 2015 11:20:04 #
Good one Ihammer. I've purposely used a slower shutter speed than would normally do to show action in this shot. I'm using a 70-200 lens, F4.5 @ 1/100 sec actually shot at 160mm, and yes, the image stabilization was on to help freeze the performer but let the yo-yo and string blur. Shot taken at ISO 2000.
Nov 24, 2014 10:50:39 #
teacherrich70 wrote:
Was wonderingg how many pictures an NFL sideline photographer might take during a normal NFL game.
Would be interested to know...? I shoot collegian sports and shoot between 6-800 shots per game. Few more for some sports than others. Maybe on the upper end of that number for football and on the lower end for women's basketball. A bit part for me is how many fans in the stands. University wants shots with "butts in the seats" in the background. That isn't always easy when shooting sports that are not so heavily attended by fans. I know what the University wants so I don't shoot everything that runs swims or hides. I try to shoot just what they will use. Time is money, takes too long to filter through hundreds of images that won't be used anyway.
Jun 19, 2014 10:28:29 #
mwsilvers wrote:
I'd second thst. :thumbup:
I third that! I'd stick with the "L" series glass. The 70-200 2.8 is a wonderful lens. Very sharp, great for portraits as well. Handiest lens in my bag for shooting on a daily basis.
May 15, 2014 09:49:49 #
reMarkable wrote:
My son's baseball team plays at a field that is co... (show quote)
I shoot through a chain link fence all the time at my job. I use a very small aperture with my 70-200 lens. This was shot at ISO 200 F4.0 @ 1/1600 sec. One thing you really have to do is stick the end of your lens directly on the chain link and try to shoot through one of the holes the best you can.
May 11, 2014 11:07:41 #
This might be a different slant on this subject but it does address 'volume'. I am the only full time photographer for the University of Northern CO. I average (during the academic school year) about 3K shots a month. Portrait shots are all filed away but shots taken of sporting events are culled to about 10% of the original volume and are multiple key-worded (for easy search) and kept active for 5 years then stored deeper in our storage facility. I guess what I'm really getting at here is, if you ever expect to use them again you need to figure out a way to search your archives for content.
Mar 27, 2014 16:04:47 #
amehta wrote:
I like the bookshelf picture in that article. :lol:
indeed!
Mar 27, 2014 15:54:24 #
Peekayoh wrote:
Which two cameras are you using?
There is no difference using the Nikon D600/D800 or the Sony A7/A7r, well in fact the A7r performs better,
There is no difference using the Nikon D600/D800 or the Sony A7/A7r, well in fact the A7r performs better,
I'm not speaking of cameras at all here Peekayoh. I'm speaking of your reference to pixel size on a sensor. One article to look at was quoted from wlgoode...
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/does.pixel.size.matter/
Mar 27, 2014 12:33:41 #
Peekayoh wrote:
There's no longer any truth or evidence that large pixels are better. Look at the empirical evidence if you don't believe the science.
I realize there is not much difference in the performance of pixel size when there is plenty of light, but...I am finding a demonstrative amount of evidence that the camera with the larger pixels perform much better in low light than smaller pixels. Doesn't it lead one to believe that, given the fact that larger pixels perform better in low light situations and large and small pixels perform about the same in normal light situations that the nod for a better pixel had to be given to the larger?