PerL: There seems to be a lot of excitement on the mirrorless forums about red dot sights, bypassing the EVF altogether for tracking action. That tells me that EVFs still lags OVFs in speed, by an amount enough to be an issue.
Yeah. I've never used a red dot sight for it's optical pathway. I've always used it because it allows for an accurate aim with a wide field of view.
There's no shortage of discussion of red dot sights on DSLR forums. The only reason it's being discussed heavily now, is because there's finally a commercial RDS available.
Such a well done idea.
Nifty. Looks nice.
amateurphotographer: Am a working photographer and have the 500SSD which is partitioned for both mac and PC. I was looking for a 1TB last week and this has solved my problem. The monster digital is 1TB ssd (USD1400) but has thunderbolt but no usb3, so no good for PCs. G technology don't have 1TB ssd. On my existing 500ssd I do find it handy having both thunderbolt and usb3, most importantly it give you the versatility to transfer files to clients as quick as possible depending on their machine. Also I use both PC and Imac at home so useful in that environment.This 1TB is pricey but if you really need the transfer speed, the portability, the thunderbolt with usb3 then there aren't many or no other options currently on the market (maybe I am wrong). If you can wait for file transfer then don't get SSD, standard hard drive is cheaper. This 1TB SSD is built for users needing the speed.
Seagate thunderbolt adaptor. Bus powered. Can switch from usb3 to FireWire to thunderbolt. Can use bare drives.
Great shot. Might pay to check your sensor for dust though. Looks like a spec on the left side.
That's really nice. Great idea.
User8687568425: My adventure at the Rollerderby in Connecticut....http://robertcooper1127.tumblr.com/post/113469265414/rollerderby
What did you think? Did it make sense, or is another visit required. :D
jhinkey: Wow, it is a tough crowd.How many of you have tried to shoot such a fast moving subject in such dim lighting? This would be a challenge with FX gear and you'd have to resort to full on f/2.8 FX primes.Yes, I agree the pics are not museum of fine art worthy, but for what they are or are meant to be they seem just fine.
I think most are reacting to the large DOF and are expecting more OOF backgrounds. That's just a limitation of the format and available lenses.Would have liked to seen the 42.5/1.2 Pany being used (why just Oly lenses?).
"In our tests we found that measured ISOs from the E-M10 were accurate, meaning ISO 100 indicated is equal to ISO 100 measured." - DPR
"In our testing, the E-M1's images were consistent with the ISO standard - ISO 100 = ISO 100." - DPR
Martinka: Nice video, terrible photos...
So you don't believe DXOmark?
Oh, but look at your other comment. Looks like you do believe DXOmark for ISO (You just don't know what it means).
What other fallacies will we see from you today?
(which is inflated and more like iso 3200 for other cameras)This is wrong. You really should learn what you're talking about.
Well, what would you use to isolate using DoF? The 70-200 doesn't cut it (I shoot alongside FF users using that lens. We all have problems with cluttered backgrounds - not surprising as there's less than a stop in DoF, between the 70-200f2.8 and the 75mm f1.8).PS. I don't know any Nikon 150f2. I was thinking the 200f2.
Well, let's look at this claim.D700 is about 1 stop better than an OM-D at ISO 3200-6400 (See DXO). You'd be shooting f4, and the OM-D at f2.8, so there goes any IQ advantage with respect to noise, etc. You do get 1 stop DOF advantage. Obviously if the M4/3 needs to go to 6400, then you're SOL.
So, with regard to IQ, there's almost no difference.
Ok, how about weight.Well, D700 + 24-120f4 + 70-200f4 = ~2.55kgAnd E-M5II + 12-35 + 35-100 = ~ 1.16kg Quite a substantial difference there.
And finally costAccording to B&H $3542 for the Nikon kit, and $3599 for the M4/3s kit. However, for the Nikon kit you get a B+ second hand body. Oh yeah, D700 is 5FPS, unless you add a grip. That's another $300 and 300gm (plus batteries).
Yep. That looks like an awesome deal to me. :P
If you want to isolate roller derby with DOF, then for your "needs" I think you probably need to be around 200 f2. That's the lens you want. Start there and work backwards. :P
brycesteiner: This is seriously considered a sport?
50-60 years ago, it wasn't the same sport. In fact it was most probably "sports entertainment". Roller Derby as seen here is a sport developed only in the last 10-15 years.
Yeah, we've already seen your earlier efforts in this thread, nerd2. We don't need another bait and switch from you so soon.
What happened to the need for "For any sports photography, you just need sharp, well isolated from background, clean image of something interesting." Did you decide that wasn't a goal worth following up on?
If you'd like to give me 10-15 grand or so, I can put together a rig that would satisfy your requirements, nerd2. Something like a D4 and a 200f2 would be the place to start.
Armchair criticism is easy. Roller Derby is easy to access. Go shoot some and report back.
A few people here seem to be under the impression that the goal behind shooting derby is to grab a handful of shots for your blog. That is incorrect. The photos are usually for the players so they can see the bout from a more relaxed viewpoint (as opposed to being in the thick of it). Finding some nice artsy shots is a bonus, but that's the sort of thing you play around with when there are enough other photogs providing decent coverage of the bout.
And, as I mentioned before, if your plan is to use DoF to isolate players, then, IMO, you're doing it wrong. It's not the best tool for the job. A much better approach is to isolate with lighting.
Precious few of the greatest sports photographs fit your list of requirements.
Damn. I forgot the inverse correlation between the calibre of some sports photogs on this site, and their ability to understand basic concepts.
Had a look. Nah, I think Donald Chin does much better work.
Oh, what's that? I'm not supposed to troll the professional sports photogs when they act like jerks. :P
I had a look at your art of sport page. Great shots, but entirely useless for what the Roller Derby people are looking for. I suspect you know that though.
nerd2: I don't get it. $1099 body + $899 12-40 2.8 + $1499 40-150 2.8 + 45 1.8 = whooping $4K worth of gear, frequent lens changes and only 5fps.
I could use D750 + 28-300 lens combo to take approximately the same outputs, while much less hassle overall (cheaper and lighter, does not require lens change, faster AF, faster fps, comparable DOF, comparable resolution etc)
First was the bait, and now comes the switch. :P