For the budding sports photographer!(videos)

Ricky91t

I found these videos on youtube now they are nothing specail but they help with portfolios,kit and abit of under pressure working...Thought id show them as they are new enough on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25WmoFKNADU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKAppvMK1Vc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6YyajfQr0A

whyulittle

Bloody show off!! :mad: :mad:

:pac:

Mr Dave C

Very interesting Thanks..

JackKelly

Do all sports photographers shoot jpeg? I was surprised by that. Cool videos anyway. That's some amount of gear to carry around.

City-Exile

YES!
jpeg gives you quicker writing times & larger burst rate.
It also speeds up processing & transfer times.
When you're shooting at 10 fps, you really don't want to fill loads of cards with RAW files. I've often shot 1000 images at a game.

Paulw

I watched those a long time ago. Interesting, all the same.

As for jpg or raw - personally I shoot raw because I can. But, I can certainly understand the use of jpg and it's very common for sport, because it just speeds up processing time, and you can get the image to the client very quickly. It also improves burst rate and speed.

Normally at a game, I'd only shoot about 300 images. So, I can process them through Lightroom very quickly, and I seldom have deadlines that are that tight.

He does carry some nice gear. That 400mm f/2.8 is on my wishlist - or is that a dream list??

Ricky91t

Anyone notice(for those that watched it )he said 80-200 and 17-35 arent they 70-200 and 16-35 or do the americans get different lens

Paulw

The 80-200mm is an older lens, no longer used made, AFAIK.

As for the 17-35mm, again, an older lens that Canon made.

City-Exile

Paulw wrote: »

The 80-200mm is an older lens, no longer used made, AFAIK.

As for the 17-35mm, again, an older lens that Canon made.

He was a bit confused about the lenses, because at one stage, he called it a 70-200mm

I only realised last week that the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM has an 82mm diamater, where as the 17-35mm f/2.8L & the 16-35mm f/2.8L had 77mm diameter.

Would like to see the difference between the two.

Paulw

City-Exile wrote: »

I only realised last week that the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM has an 82mm diamater, where as the 17-35mm f/2.8L & the 16-35mm f/2.8L had 77mm diameter.

Would like to see the difference between the two.

The 16-35mm f/2.8 II needs a filter on the end (82mm) for it to be fully weather sealed. I'm considering buying this lens for the wide side.

challengemaster

Paulw wrote: »

That 400mm f/2.8 is on my wishlist - or is that a dream list??

You've got no wife, so it's a wishlist

Cheers ricky

And yeah, I remember seeing a 80-200mm, it's a black L lens instead of the white colour most have.

AnimalRights

I gotta laugh when some people here and on review sites like FM say one of the negatives of the large Canon Ls are the colour White, I'd hate it if it was black, White is luuuuuuuuuvley!

Paulw

challengemaster wrote: »

You've got no wife, so it's a wishlist

Cheers ricky

And yeah, I remember seeing a 80-200mm, it's a black L lens instead of the white colour most have.

No wife, true, but a girlfriend. Besides, it's a lot of money to save.

I certainly prefer the white lenses. They get more recognition. Also, easier to spot Canon users.

Ricky91t

Paulw wrote: »

The 80-200mm is an older lens, no longer used made, AFAIK.

As for the 17-35mm, again, an older lens that Canon made.

Corrct me if im wrong but i thought the 80-200 was called the "drain pipe" as it was big and black he had a white lens plus he had a 1D mkiii

City-Exile

Paulw wrote: »

The 16-35mm f/2.8 II needs a filter on the end (82mm) for it to be fully weather sealed. I'm considering buying this lens for the wide side.

Me too!
The next €1k I'll spend.
Got a new 580EX II with the money from a commercial sale.
It's all about reinvesting.

Ricky91t

City-Exile wrote: »

Me too!
The next €1k I'll spend.
Got a new 580EX II with the money from a commercial sale.
It's all about reinvesting.

would the 16-35 not be to short ??Like the wide angle is nice but its too short..Im planning on getting a sigma 20-40 f/2.8 dg went for nothing on ebay but buyer couldnt pay so it was relisted.From there ill get the 24-70 or move to L


allternatively you could just get a job as a resident getty photographer :pac:

City-Exile

Too short for what?
It's great for team shots where there are large numbers & you get shots like this...

sunny2004

No interest in sports photography but found this interesting !

Cheers

Ricky91t

City-Exile wrote: »

Too short for what?
It's great for team shots where there are large numbers & you get shots like this...

Like say you have the 24-70 and the 16-35 if you're in the large crowd of people while they are collecting the trophy surely it'll be to short and the 24 would be perfect?

City-Exile

If you're at a big presentation, you'll probably be held back behind a line, so you might even need to use your 70-200mm

I use the 17-35mm f/2.8 for team shots & celebration shots.
Can't say I have any issues with it.
I know where you're going with the 24-70mm f/2.8 though.

Ricky91t

City-Exile wrote: »

If you're at a big presentation, you'll probably be held back behind a line, so you might even need to use your 70-200mm

I use the 17-35mm f/2.8 for team shots & celebration shots.
Can't say I have any issues with it.
I know where you're going with the 24-70mm f/2.8 though.

Well thanks for clearing that up...:D
I get you anyway i just like to ask questions

*adds 70-200 and 16-35 to wishlist* :P

kensutz

I also use the 17-40 for squad and celebrations. Great lens for people getting real close to you when they're celebrating.

Ricky91t

kensutz wrote: »

I also use the 17-40 for squad and celebrations. Great lens for people getting real close to you when they're celebrating.

and its like 50% of the price

Paulw

I have the 24-70mm f/2.8 and use it for team shots and such.

I was getting the 16-35mm f/2.8 II for landscape and really wide angle stuff. It's as wide as I can get for the 1D MkIII.

The 580EX II would be nice but I have the original, and don't need the newer one.

Besides I just spent the money I had for the 16-35mm on a new PC.

challengemaster

hmm.. anyone notice he's got no camera body cover, he just leaves the sensor exposed putting it in the bag?

City-Exile

challengemaster wrote: »

hmm.. anyone notice he's got no camera body cover, he just leaves the sensor exposed putting it in the bag?

The sensor is behind the shutter, so it wouldn't be exposed.
When you don't pay for your own gear & you have dedicated maintenance agreements, it's easy to be flippant.

Ricky91t

challengemaster wrote: »

hmm.. anyone notice he's got no camera body cover, he just leaves the sensor exposed putting it in the bag?

I noticed that but though the same as city exile!He got them for fre so they probably get checked over every once in a while

challengemaster

Aye.. bastid.

"We're all issued this, this, this, this and these when we join"

/jaw drops

shepthedog

Great videos thanks for posting .. Interesting..
I have the 17-40L a few weeks and find it brilliant.. Gives you a totally different set of options from the 70-200.

Ricky91t

challengemaster wrote: »

Aye.. bastid.

"We're all issued this, this, this, this and these when we join"

/jaw drops

/sends pleading email to getty :rolleyes:

Ricky91t

shepthedog wrote: »

Great videos thanks for posting .. Interesting..
I have the 17-40L a few weeks and find it brilliant.. Gives you a totally different set of options from the 70-200.

Do you use it on a crop body or ff?