Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum > Tech Talk
Register Forum Rules FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-23-2009, 02:37 PM   #41
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ditch View Post
I wouldn't suggest starting with an SLR just due to the fact it will be a big learning curve compared to an intro level DSLR because you will have to learn your white balances and exposures levels really well right away to get good shots, plus paying for all the film.

Either Canon or Nikon offers good intro cameras. One thing I don't particularly like about the Canon XTi series is that it doesn't have spot metering on it, I believe the XSi has it though. Other then that, once you start progressing you'll really see the difference a good lens can make, I've finally amassed a decent collection of good lenses but as someone who does this for fun it can really take a while because it is so cost intensive.
Tell me about it. I've had my camera for a year and a half now and this is the first lens I'm buying. I've only had once previous camera spending spree that involved a tripod, some filters and a remote and that nearly came to $500.
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2009, 10:34 AM   #42
stang
CP's Fraser Crane
 
stang's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Exp:
Default

WEll bump...

My wife would like to get into taking some better pictures, and I would like to get her a DSLR camera...

I would like to get her a Canon Rebel but the Nikon talk is intriguing to me too.

Whats the best Rebel? There seems to be so many.. XTI.. XSI

Whats the comparable Nikon?

If I do get my wife a Rebel and in the future she decides to step up but changes to a Nikon or something... would that mean her lens become useless?

I am leaning towards the Canon as my mom just bought one, and so her cousin uses one too, but really just want to find one that will fit her well.

Last edited by stang; 03-14-2009 at 10:45 AM.
stang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2009, 09:41 PM   #43
FurnaceFace
Franchise Player
 
FurnaceFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 110
Exp:
Default

For us consumers. you can't go wrong with either Nikon or Canon in my mind...and I'd also throw in any of the other true camera companies like Pentax, Olympus, Sigma etc. Nikon and Canon have the biggest share of mind hence they seem to have the most lenses and all 3rd party companies seem to make lenses for Canon or Nikon mounts. Pentax mounts also seem to be widely available and Sony seems to be common now too.

As to your questions:
Rebel - a number of us on the board have the XTi and we all seem favourable to it. I think the XSi is a bit overkill and from what I've seen got a lot of "meh" reviews. The Canon XT is also a very good camera which you might be able to pick up cheap on ebay.

Comparable Nikon - I believe the XTi was to compete with the D80. The D40 and even the new D60 would also be comparable I think.

Lenses - The mount on lenses are different for each camera manufacturer so you'd have to get nikon mount lenses if she switched.

Again, I really doubt for us amateurs it makes much of a difference which company's badge is on the body, I'd say it more comes down to personal preference.

I've had a couple of Canons so I was familiar with their menu system, so I was leaning that way. Also I wanted a light system for travel purposes so the XTi was the direction I went. Also I don't have big mitts so the XTi fit my hand better...this is something you might want to consider since it's for your wife.

Best is to walk into one of the camera stores and have her try out a few models so she can pick the one she's most comfortable with. Also heed Neeper's advice on lenses, they are as he says more important.

Personally I have a Sigma 18-200mm IS lens which sits permanently on my XTi. It gives me the range I need for what I use this camera and has very good quality glass. If I need longer distances - like my recent trip to Tanzania - I have an ultrazoom camera and tele converter. (having 750mm worth of lens that weighed next to nothing was of huge convenience when on that trip).
__________________
FurnaceFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2009, 11:33 AM   #44
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

^^ pretty much what he says. Both cameras are awesome and it could boil down to something as simple as which menu navigation/button layout she prefers. Also take a look at Neeper's post on lenses which is where the real difference comes into play.

Do they still make the xti? I was under the impression it was replaced by the xsi. I have an xti and am extremely happy with it.
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2009, 06:44 PM   #45
FurnaceFace
Franchise Player
 
FurnaceFace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 110
Exp:
Default

Vistek still has the XTi and it's available all over the internets.

Same would go with the D80, I believe the D90 replaced it.
__________________
FurnaceFace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2009, 10:32 AM   #46
octothorp
Franchise Player
 
octothorp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: not lurking
Exp:
Default

Can anyone recommend a really good, solid tripod that's also really light? I want to get one for my wife for an upcoming trip we're taking. Her camera is a Canon EOS D Mark II, which is already pretty heavy to lug around. I've heard a lot about Manfrotto tripods. What other brands should I look into?
octothorp is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 03:14 PM   #47
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

It's new lens time again! This thread was invaluable in finding my last lens and I'm hoping for some more opinions.

I'm looking for something a little faster and a little wider. The lens I bought last year is great for zoom, but the lowest f/stop is 3.5. I also am getting more into landscape photography which is why I'm gravitating towards a wider lens.

I'm currently looking at both a Canon and a Sigma, both 28mm f1.8. Is that good for general usage? I'm using it on a Canon Rebel Xti. Is an f of 1.8 overkill for general usage indoors? Obviously light levels vary too much to say for sure, but if somebody could ballpark it I would appreciate it.

For landscape photography is 28mm reasonable or does anybody think I should go wider? My cost constraints put me in the $300-$500 range.
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-18-2010, 03:28 PM   #48
ah123
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Here
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russic View Post
I'm currently looking at both a Canon and a Sigma, both 28mm f1.8. Is that good for general usage? I'm using it on a Canon Rebel Xti. Is an f of 1.8 overkill for general usage indoors? Obviously light levels vary too much to say for sure, but if somebody could ballpark it I would appreciate it.

For landscape photography is 28mm reasonable or does anybody think I should go wider? My cost constraints put me in the $300-$500 range.
F1.8 is actually very nice for indoor stuff - I have a 50 1.8 and I use it all the time to take pictures of my 10-month old daughter. You might still need a flash for indoors, depending on the amount of light coming in, but it allows you to really blur out the background. One thing to consider, the depth-of-field on a 1.8 can be very shallow and that is something that took me a while before I got used to it...

For landscapes, go as wide as you can afford...your budget will dictate how wide you can go (I would love a 10-14, but I am not willing to drop a $1000 yet)

Hope that helps...
ah123 is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ah123 For This Useful Post:
Old 02-18-2010, 04:01 PM   #49
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

In your opinion do you think I'd notice a big difference between a 28mm and a 24mm?
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 09:29 AM   #50
ah123
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Here
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Russic View Post
In your opinion do you think I'd notice a big difference between a 28mm and a 24mm?
I would say yes, but I think there are many factors here...I don't have either a 28 or 24mm prime so, I am going based on others' pictures and opinions...
ah123 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-19-2010, 10:06 AM   #51
Russic
Dances with Wolves
 
Russic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Section 304
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ah123 View Post
I would say yes, but I think there are many factors here...I don't have either a 28 or 24mm prime so, I am going based on others' pictures and opinions...
I'm in the position where getting that 4mm would cost about $100. I think I'm going to do it ... I might try and find a way to rent the lens before buying it.
Russic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 04:45 PM   #52
nickerjones
Franchise Player
 
nickerjones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Oklahoma - Where they call a puck a ball...
Exp:
Default

Hate to bump an old thread but...
I sent this as a PM to a member here but i figured Id post the questions here too..

I have a beginners DSLR a D3000. Its not what I wanted but my newbness and finances limited me to this to use to learn. I havent gotten much practice in but I have some questions. I really want to shoot sports. Mainly Hockey and Baseball . I have shot some of my beginners hockey team's practices and have had some trouble. I am just shooting with kit lenses mainly 55-200 so I am sure they are a big part of the problem. I will upload a few pics for examples .

1st. Obviously shooting hockey in crappy rinks is hard. I turn the iso down and too dark , I switch up and way grainy. What can I do to help this problem.

2nd . I shoot a picture and it doesnt seem to focus on things. For example I shoot a guy 10 feet from me but I can see all the way to the other end of the rink clearly. ( does this make sense?) Any remedy for this?

Here are a couple shots.. I am guessing a photo editing software could help but I dont have one ...



Uploaded with ImageShack.us



Uploaded with ImageShack.us
__________________
Beer League Players Association - Home of the adult "athlete"
nickerjones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2010, 04:58 PM   #53
Phaneuf3
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

I'm pretty amateur too but I'll give it a shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickerjones View Post
1st. Obviously shooting hockey in crappy rinks is hard. I turn the iso down and too dark , I switch up and way grainy. What can I do to help this problem.
Well, obviously, not enough light to shoot at lower ISO. You either need more light on the censor or a higher ISO. Sounds like you've already figured this part out. The 'more light' solution would be pretty tough in that situation (can't add more light to the environment) and impossible if you have your aperture opened all the way.

If high ISO is too grainy and noise removal after you download the pictures doesn't cut it, how old is your camera? Newer dSLRs - even the lower end ones - have MUCH better performance at high ISOs vs older ones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickerjones View Post
2nd . I shoot a picture and it doesnt seem to focus on things. For example I shoot a guy 10 feet from me but I can see all the way to the other end of the rink clearly. ( does this make sense?) Any remedy for this?
Is it a case of focusing on the wrong thing or your depth of field is too great? If it's the second one (which is how I'm reading your sentence), lower your f stop and it'll give you a shallower depth of field (i.e. only the stuff you're properly focused on is in focus and everything else is really blurry).


edit: 2 other things about q1 - the other option that I'm sure you've already considered is leaving the shutter open for longer. That's not always possible if you're trying to get a sharp image and you're already at the slowest shutter speed you can get away with.

Also, if you have your aperture all the way open on your current lens, perhaps you need a lens that can open it wider. That solution can get pricey fast.

Last edited by Phaneuf3; 06-11-2010 at 05:58 PM.
Phaneuf3 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Phaneuf3 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-11-2010, 10:04 PM   #54
SebC
tromboner
 
SebC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: where the lattes are
Exp:
Default

Nickerjones, it sounds like you're reaching the limit of what your camera and lens can do.

Both of your problems (not enough light and unwanted depth of field) are resolved by going with a wider aperture. Assuming you're already using the widest possible on your lens, then what you need is a faster lens. They're pricey. A cheaper solution would be a fast prime lens that will probably give you the kind of shot you want, but you won't be able to zoom in or out. If you're shooting minor league though or have tickets where your distance from the action doesn't change too much, that could be a limitation you can handle.
SebC is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SebC For This Useful Post:
Old 06-11-2010, 11:56 PM   #55
Jayems
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickerjones View Post

1st. Obviously shooting hockey in crappy rinks is hard. I turn the iso down and too dark , I switch up and way grainy. What can I do to help this problem.
I shoot a ton of hockey so I'll try and give you some tips as to what I do.

Cam and Lens:

Now when I first started out, I had my own camera (D80) and my work camera (Canon 30D). Both pretty basic cameras. What I did was purchased a prime 50mm lens (1.8) [prime means that it's a fixed lens, ie: no zooming etc).

So although you're stuck with a focal length of 50mm, having that f1.8 and pumping the ISO to 1600 would give me at least 1/500 of a second to shoot. The quality wasn't the best, but it got the job done.

With my work camera, what I used was a 100-400 4/5.6. The other people I shot with thought I was crazy to use it, but it would work for certain things.

I'd basically have to shoot at 5.6, ISO 1600 and something really terrible like 1/80th of a second. For these shots, I'd wait for action to stop and try and get the player profile pictures that we needed if a feature was done on that guy that week. Otherwise, I'd try and shoot dead-on (ie: they're coming up the ice directly at you.) Any type of side-shot, fast movement was basically not an option. It is a really tough way to shoot, but you can get a couple keepers if you time it right.

Lighting:

If you don't know, most rinks have a lighting system that "pulses" the electricity around the lights in a circuit. As the electricity moves through each light, it will change the colour temperature of the photo. That's why you'll see a lot of magenta tones when you get the photos back home. There's really no perfect answer to how to combat this other than knowing the rink. You should always take a custom white balance off the ice if you can or if your camera will allow it.

Shoot on a ladder:

I always, always, always shoot on a ladder above the glass when possible. Shooting through the glass will not only reduce your light by an f-stop or two, but you have scuff marks, scratches and everything else on the glass to contend with.

Most rink rats will give you a ladder. You obviously have to be watching the entire time as not to get a puck straight in the noggen. Position yourself at about the hashmarks of one of the zones. This way, you'll get good action from the goalie but can still get shots elsewhere on the ice. Forget about shooting anything past the redline.

Shooting:

It's generally a good idea to always have the puck visible on a play. Unless the photo is more creative, you always want faces in the frame. But this is all subjective. It's about the photo and the photographer.

Post processing:

Always shoot in raw format. This way, any white balance issues can be easily fixed as well as adjusting the exposure if it's a tad too bright or dark.

Once in photoshop, or whatever, check your horizons. Hockey players don't skate uphill. You need to select all (alt-a), edit>transform>rotate. Get the boards level, accept it, and then crop out the corners.



Quote:
2nd . I shoot a picture and it doesnt seem to focus on things. For example I shoot a guy 10 feet from me but I can see all the way to the other end of the rink clearly. ( does this make sense?) Any remedy for this?
Your camera should have a continuous focus mode. At the very least, you'll have 3d tracking.

Basically, this will tell the camera that your subject is constantly moving. Keep your shutter pressed half-way, and the camera will continue to focus on what you have in-frame. You'll hit and miss on this sometimes as you camera may try and focus on the boards if your guy moves out of the way or if someone else enters the frame.

Put your shooting mode to continuous, and click away in a burst.

Here's a few. Shot with Nikon D3s, 70-200 2.8.







Now, shooting at the dome is a lot better because of the light. However, unlike most rinks you see on TV, the saddledome doesn't have holes in the glass to shoot through. They do have areas in the glass that have the film removed, but I was deep in a corner. As such, I lost a good couple of f-stops.



Jayems is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Jayems For This Useful Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:27 AM.

Calgary Flames
2024-25




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021 | See Our Privacy Policy