Photography Question

[BaboonGuy]

Does the SB800 flash so fast that it doesn't bother the players? If you are in the first row or sidelines I don't see how a flash is viable as it would affect the players, no?

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy

Originally posted by: Lucky
No, not a waste. The 2.8 aperature will help more than the VR. You will find at most high school gyms with a 70-200 2.8 that to capture decent action without blurriness (without an oncamera strobe) you will need to set your camera at 1600 ISO and have a shutter speed of at least 1/200 or 1/250th. Still, the VR might help folks not experts at handholding a lens this large prevent some camera shake.

Hmmm. 1600 ISO? That is pretty killer on my D70, I think I will get the lens anyway.

seeing as you are tossing around money you wanna buy me one of thoes as well

Hmm I'll think about it. Question for Anubis/Lucky, what is your lens line-up? I am thinking of adding this 70-200 in and a nice wide-angle semi-zoom or whatever.

edit: also thinking of getting an SB-800

side question: Should I just sell all my D70 equip and switch to a 20D? How much better is it?

Just updated my lenses this week when I got my own D70. (Previously my only digital was a work supplied Nikon D1). I'm loving the D70. Fantastic flash performance-bettery than probably any other camera out there. Quality at 1600 really isn't that bad according to the assignments I've shot with it this week. Grain is perceptible but not intrusive, and color accuracy is light years better than the D1.

At the wide end I've got a 12-24mm f/4. Thinking of selling this since I just got my 17-55 2.8 in. I've love to keep the 12-24 but finances keep me from doing so. My long end is covered by an 80-200 AFS lens (I wish I had the 70-200 VR!) as well as longer glass such as a 300 2.8. But for my purposes a two lense setup of the 17-55 and 80-200 is perfect.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: BaboonGuy
Does the SB800 flash so fast that it doesn't bother the players? If you are in the first row or sidelines I don't see how a flash is viable as it would affect the players, no?

If you are thinking an NBA game, they likely will not let you into the arena with that setup. Perhaps they will but unless you are courtside it will be of little use. I shoot high school basketball 3-5x a week with a hotshoe mounted SB-600 and players are not bothered it.

 

[pyonir]

Since when can you not use a monopod at an NBA game? I went to the Suns game last saturday and pretty close to every photog on the baseline had a monopod.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: Lucky
(save for perhaps SI, but with the quality of DSLR's as it is, even they are moving from chromes to digital).

SI rarely shoots anything but digital. It's just not effective any other way.

Interesting Article about SI at the Super Bowl

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Lucky
(save for perhaps SI, but with the quality of DSLR's as it is, even they are moving from chromes to digital).

SI rarely shoots anything but digital. It's just not effective any other way.

Interesting Article about SI at the Super Bowl

Thanks, I've read the article.

As for chromes vs. digital, I don't think my statement was incorrect. For any time-sensitive shooting they do shoot digital. I'm sure for some assignments that chromes, as well as various other film formats are still employed for various artistic differences.

As for monopods, maybe you are correct. Every NBA game I've covered has been packed three deep and there was not room for monopods. But it's been 3-4 years since I've covered one.

 

[pyonir]

Originally posted by: Lucky
As for chromes vs. digital, I don't think my statement was incorrect. For any time-sensitive shooting they do shoot digital. I'm sure for some assignments that chromes, as well as various other film formats are still employed for various artistic differences.

I didn't mean to come off saying you were incorrect about chromes vs. digital. I agree that they probably still do use chromes for a few things, but they are rare. The swimsuit edition for example..I'm pretty sure they still use film for that. Any shots you see in the magazine from games and "action" shots though, i'd venture to say that none of them are film.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: pyonir

Originally posted by: Lucky
As for chromes vs. digital, I don't think my statement was incorrect. For any time-sensitive shooting they do shoot digital. I'm sure for some assignments that chromes, as well as various other film formats are still employed for various artistic differences.

I didn't mean to come off saying you were incorrect about chromes vs. digital. I agree that they probably still do use chromes for a few things, but they are rare. The swimsuit edition for example..I'm pretty sure they still use film for that. Any shots you see in the magazine from games and "action" shots though, i'd venture to say that none of them are film.

you are correct most model shoots like the SI swimsuit ed are shot on medium or large format film depending on what exactoly it is

i guess they coudl be useing MF digital backs cause they can afford to

 

[Fritzo]

Rats...I read the topic as "Pornography Question." Thought it was going to be a lot more interesting

 

[Nightfall]

I shoot photography for US College Hockey as a side job and it is a challenge even for me to get good pictures like that. Course, basketball, especially pro stadiums, have much better lighting that some high school and college courts. Same goes for hockey. I have taken some of my best pictures at college hockey games when played at pro rinks.

Anyway, it all comes down to equipment. I have an older Nikon D1H with a nice 70-200mm AFS lens with vibration reduction. Even in crappy lighting, I can get some good shots. At pro arenas, I get VERY good shots.

My Gallery

I have links to my older stuff as well as some roller hockey as well.