| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
You dont need the latest camera with the lowest noise....
Alex Boyce, Photographer
 |
Florence | EU | Italy | Posted: 12:10 PM on 02.11.10 |
->> ok so i shot the linked image at iso 1600 on a markiiN and also the flashes are off other peoples cameras, i used a 300mm 2.8 cant remember the shutter i will look but it is on a front cover.....
So you dont need a new super duper camera you dont need to worry too much about noise and pixel peeping and you just need to find the right moment.
http://www.maremmaphotos.com/photo/tonimx.jpg |
|
Tim Kelly, Photographer
|
Troy | MI | USA | Posted: 12:51 PM on 02.11.10 |
| ->> Agreed. But then again there are dozens of magazine covers printed from digital pictures before the latest hi ISO cameras made it to market... |
|
David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 1:24 PM on 02.11.10 |
| ->> "What you need is a curve ball.....!" |
|
Louis Lopez, Photographer
|
Fontana | CA | USA | Posted: 1:30 PM on 02.11.10 |
| ->> Another thread stating the obvious? |
|
Alex Boyce, Photographer
|
Florence | EU | Italy | Posted: 2:03 PM on 02.11.10 |
| ->> i just wanted to confirm it to myself... |
|
Brad Barr, Photographer
|
Port St. Lucie | FL | USA | Posted: 3:39 PM on 02.11.10 |
| ->> you never need it until you need it....then you need it. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 12:49 AM on 02.12.10 |
| ->> Brad, you are so right. that rule of thumb by Mr. Boyce is a recipe for failure. |
|
Jack Megaw, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Pittsburgh | PA | America | Posted: 1:52 AM on 02.12.10 |
->> I completely agree that you don't NEED that high ISO performance ALL the time. But what I do know is the amount of keepers I get shooting basketball in a dark gym has more than doubled since I brought a second hand D3 in late December.
That said gear isn't everything and it's the photographer that makes the image - much like when somebody sees our pictures and says: "Wow I wish I had your camera!" To which is the response is: "It's not the camera - it's the photographer"
-Jack |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 2:06 AM on 02.12.10 |
->> Funny thing, I just got back from shooting a University of Pittsburgh wrestling match. They hold them at the old Fitzgerald Field House (where the Panthers used to play basketball, for those unfamiliar) and the whole gym was dark except for these four lights blaring out from inside the scoreboard.
Now, the scoreboard has been lowered, but even the wrestlers were in the dark as they approached "out of bounds" area. I thought to myself... "Boy, I wish I had one of those new bodies that has amazing ISO performance..."
Now, the lens was a 70-200 USM IS Canon model. So, I know that I had the glass going in. The ISO on my 50D just doesn't cut it in this EXTREME (in my opinion) environment. I would love the 12,800 or even 6400 if it was truly wasn't as banded as it is.
Now, a high school gym, I can get away with a few things because of the customer (Neat Image, etc). This, however, was a nightmare.
Where does the ISO really perform well in the Canon line? Obviously the IV is the answer, but there has to be a point where it turned the corner in the other 1D models.
I realize that the 50D is better than the 40D, etc... but I need to eventually make the right choice for a primary body if this is what I'll be shooting.
Suggestions? I'd like to hear what body is recommended if ISO performance is the primary thing that I am looking for.
Thanks. |
|
Mike Doran, Photographer
|
Petaluma | CA | U.S.A. | Posted: 2:56 AM on 02.12.10 |
| ->> Agreed. I shot an image during the 2008 USGP at Laguna Seca that stands against any image put out by my 7D today. Nice cover shot. |
|
Jason Heffran, Photographer
|
Natrona Heights | PA | USA | Posted: 10:41 AM on 02.12.10 |
->> Alex,
I do agree, however, that the most important part is to get the "shot". In the same way, I have always opted to spend my $$ on the glass, not the body.
If I have too many more "dungeon shoots", I'll probably upgrade. But for now, the ability to strobe has saved me in most cases indoors.
Cool shot, though. Congrats on cover. |
|
Robert Scheer, Photographer
|
Indianapolis | IN | USA | Posted: 9:15 AM on 02.13.10 |
->> Absolutely, cool cover. Congrats!
That said, I love my Mk 2s (and don't tend to be a squeaky wheel), but have been pining for an upgrade from my employer since I regularly shoot games with other staffers toting D3s and Mk 3s. Their images blow up nice and POP on our editor's computer screens, which makes a difference on deadline.
But, have just gotten an upgrade, which I'm more than thrilled about. |
|
Alex Boyce, Photographer
|
Florence | EU | Italy | Posted: 7:05 PM on 02.13.10 |
->> Thanks for the info and feedback on the cover, Chuck i have noticed that if i post something you always come out against my opinion, "that rule of thumb by Mr. Boyce is a recipe for failure." im not sure why, but i was voicing an opinion about people getting bogged down in high iso latest camera obsessions, i wouldnt call it a rule of thumb, but i would say that it proved something to myself, nothing more im sure upgrading to the latest body would help but it is not the be all and end all, unless i misunderstood your comment? I know yours is an opinion as well, and i would be interested in how the idea i suggested would lead to failure? I dont get the shot? or you mean no-one takes me seriously? Or what? im interested....
In my experience most magazine editors i have dealt with here in Europe have never looked at my files and said oh too much noise or the iso is too high, mostly all of my editors have been impressed and i have got shots often of moments because i threw the rule book away of high iso and went for it, allowing me to stop action and get a sharp shot which was more important than noise. In most cases the print has always not displayed the noise in the files which is interesting even when printed double page. When i have present good artistic photos to editors sometimes they have gone for the more normal boring shots as i quote "our readers wont appreciate this shot, although i know its good,"
Something i have noticed is what is in our heads and what readers expect is different and i have discovered despite pushing for the best shot and most new artistic high quality point of view, editors and readers dont want it, they want same old....
For example in motorcycle photos normally the camera is tilted by all photographers to exaggerate the lean of the bike in a corner, this is a standard shot, i was employed because i dont do this type of shot, the editor was looking for something different, new interesting, which i have tried to give him. He has always been happy. Being given a free reign to experiment has meant i have in the last year had 2 covers out of 10. which is very good. PLus other mags have had my shots on the covers.
In my experience we need to play it looser maybe and we end up surprising ourselves by throwing the rule book away and going for it. I can be wrong but i know that so far it has helped me out. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|