On Nov 4, 2003, at 9:54 AM, John Stone wrote:
>> On Nov 3, 2003, at 8:40 PM, Jonathan Fletcher wrote:
>>
>> ... stuff cut out ...
>>
>>>
>>> It is also very hard to photograph an athlete that is moving very
>>> fast, at night under artificial lighting, with a slow telephoto lens
>>> and get it sharp. (I know. I've tried.) You can use higher speed
>>> film, but the graininess gets a lot worse. Take one of THOSE photos
>>> and crop it tightly so you can see the face of the athlete and then
>>> blow it up to full page, and "viola!" you have Sports Illustrated!
>>>
>>
>
>
> Then Jerry wrote:
>
>> Shucks, Canon will happily sell you an EF 300 mm f2.8 L lens (with
>> Image Stabilizer and Ultra Sonic Motor) for around $3800 - $3900 or
>> so ... That ought to do the trick.
>>
>> sigh,
>>
>> Yeah it's on my "after I get really rich and do other stuff first"
>> list as well. (really big grin)
>
> It's a lot easier shooting moving objects now since the advent of the
> faster auto focus cameras and lenses. The image stabilization helps
> when you can't steady yourself or use a tripod or mono pod. If you
> don't have auto focus, you can always practice on cars driving toward
> you to get your follow focus skills down! Shoot alot film is
> cheap.....digital is cheaper(no processing costs)!
>
> Sports Illustrated very rarely shoots available light, basketball(even
> high school sometimes!), hockey, indoor track are all shot with large
> ceiling mounted strobes, even sometimes swimming meets! Where as
> baseball, football, and outdoor track are all shot available light
> usually because they are lit bright enough for tv, it way more then
> enough for stills, though you still a lot of the time end up pushing
> the film to get the shutter speed faster.
>
The brighter lenses (<f3 or so) help with this because the auto-focus
is much faster than with the dimmer lenses allowing you can shoot with
high shutter speeds at lower ISOs to keep that gosh awful noise out of
the image (and in turn spend a lot less time using PhotoShop or The
Gimp on the Mac -- hey just keeping this thread Mac oriented, grin).
Image Stabilization (IS) can be a toss up. Over 150 mm or so (depending
on the photographer), camera shake really is a factor, using IS keeps
those images sharp. (This is why so many folks with the 10X zoom
digicams get lousy telephoto images, no IS). On the other hand, the
high shutter speeds needed for action can compensate for tele-zoom
camera shake a bit, still only up to a point. But if there is a bit of
wind, then IS can save the photo. Whether or not it is worth the extra
$400 - $500 or so in the lens is up to the photographer.
Jerry
> John
>
> --
> U-2 and SR-71 Web Page
>
> http://www.blackbirds.net
>
> Those who would sacrifice Liberty for Security deserve neither
> -Benjamin Franklin
>
>
> | The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
> | be November 25. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
> | This list's page is <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>.
>
| The next meeting of the Louisville Computer Society will
| be November 25. The LCS Web page is <http://www.kymac.org>.
| This list's page is <http://erdos.math.louisville.edu/macgroup>.
