Daniel185158
Forum Enthusiast
Heres some hockey pics from tonight. Iso 3200 and 1600. Lense 80-200 2.8L
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
20D hockey action
- Thread starter Daniel185158
- Start date
Daniel185158
Forum Enthusiast
Bill Bentley
Active member
Daniel, these are just the kind of shots I was hoping someone would post. The pics look a little bit on the dark side but I took one into PS, cropped to 8 x 12, did an Auto Color, USM and Highlight/Shadows followed by Neat Image. Picture looked very good. I like the low noise level of the 20D.
From the POV it looks like you were low down in the seats. I would be curious to know what settings you used. I assume you were at f2.8 and 1/250 maybe at 1600? Were you using AWB?
Thanks for posting these.
--
Bill B.
Daniel185158
Forum Enthusiast
Checkout the exif on the pic. Still there. 
2.8-3,5 iso 1600 and 3200, 1/250-1/500, AWB
2.8-3,5 iso 1600 and 3200, 1/250-1/500, AWB
Bill Bentley
Active member
Hi Daniel, I couldn't find the EXIF info. When I opened the photo and saved it to the desktop it would only let me save it in .bmp format. When I opened it in Canon Zoom Browser the picture info section is blank. What am I doing wrong?
Your settings confirm my guess though. The pictures are nicely focused, with good stop action and with low noise at those settings. Only the white ice and uniform look a bit on the dark side. I wonder if playing with the WB settings (Tungsten?) would correct the yellowish color cast and avoid the additional post processing in PS. I guess shooting in RAW mode and doing the WB correction during conversion will also work.
Do you find yourself longing for a longer lens? I am considering the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, but wonder if it'll be long enough. With a 1.4 TC that will push it to f4 and I'm not sure if that will work for hockey in these dimly lit arenas.
Your settings confirm my guess though. The pictures are nicely focused, with good stop action and with low noise at those settings. Only the white ice and uniform look a bit on the dark side. I wonder if playing with the WB settings (Tungsten?) would correct the yellowish color cast and avoid the additional post processing in PS. I guess shooting in RAW mode and doing the WB correction during conversion will also work.
Do you find yourself longing for a longer lens? I am considering the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, but wonder if it'll be long enough. With a 1.4 TC that will push it to f4 and I'm not sure if that will work for hockey in these dimly lit arenas.
Checkout the exif on the pic. Still there.
2.8-3,5 iso 1600 and 3200, 1/250-1/500, AWB
DaveKennedy
Forum Enthusiast
Bill, it depends on where you're going to shoot hockey, there is a range of light out there. I shot for years in Binghamton covering the UHL/AHL then, at Sharks in San Jose, now in NYC shooting Devils, Islanders, mostly Rangers. Light varies from arena to arena, at Islanders you can shoot with nearly anything since the light is soooo bright (like 640ASA at 500 2.8), but at the MSG for Rangers it's 1600+ at 500 2.8 and you're still a bit under exposed.
You should be good with the 70-200 it's good enough for most places. But shooting through the glass/holes in glass/you won't need the TC, just the straight lens. If you want to shoot overhead, at least a 300mm. And there again it depends on the arena, some places won't let you shoot overhead. I was the Rangers beat photog last year for the paper and there IS NO OVERHEAD shooting area, if you can believe that.
DK
http://www.sportsshooter.com/davek
Staff Photographer/NFL beat
The Journal News
White Plains, NY
You should be good with the 70-200 it's good enough for most places. But shooting through the glass/holes in glass/you won't need the TC, just the straight lens. If you want to shoot overhead, at least a 300mm. And there again it depends on the arena, some places won't let you shoot overhead. I was the Rangers beat photog last year for the paper and there IS NO OVERHEAD shooting area, if you can believe that.
DK
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/davek
Staff Photographer/NFL beat
The Journal News
White Plains, NY
DaveKennedy
Forum Enthusiast
Thanks for posting these. I should be getting a pair of these for work soon (as he crosses his fingers).
DK
http://www.sportsshooter.com/davek
Staff Photographer/NFL beat
The Journal News
White Plains, NY
DK
--
http://www.sportsshooter.com/davek
Staff Photographer/NFL beat
The Journal News
White Plains, NY
Daniel185158
Forum Enthusiast
I want a longer lens, been looking at the sigma 120-300.
This particular arena is very dim. It's not the "top" leauge either so. I usually shoot the "pros" and those arenas are very lit. So I'm thinking of buying a 1,4 tc instead of the sigma 120-300 (alot cheaper) cause i now can shoot at iso 1600. With my 10d i was "limited" to iso 800.
With iso 800 i got around 1/500s f/2.8 in those arenas. F/4 won't be a problem.
I just put awb on i usually set the wb and stuff before. But put the pic in ps an do autolevels on it, improves alot.
This particular arena is very dim. It's not the "top" leauge either so. I usually shoot the "pros" and those arenas are very lit. So I'm thinking of buying a 1,4 tc instead of the sigma 120-300 (alot cheaper) cause i now can shoot at iso 1600. With my 10d i was "limited" to iso 800.
With iso 800 i got around 1/500s f/2.8 in those arenas. F/4 won't be a problem.
I just put awb on i usually set the wb and stuff before. But put the pic in ps an do autolevels on it, improves alot.
Your settings confirm my guess though. The pictures are nicely
focused, with good stop action and with low noise at those
settings. Only the white ice and uniform look a bit on the dark
side. I wonder if playing with the WB settings (Tungsten?) would
correct the yellowish color cast and avoid the additional post
processing in PS. I guess shooting in RAW mode and doing the WB
correction during conversion will also work.
Do you find yourself longing for a longer lens? I am considering
the Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX, but wonder if it'll be long enough. With a
1.4 TC that will push it to f4 and I'm not sure if that will work
for hockey in these dimly lit arenas.
Checkout the exif on the pic. Still there.
2.8-3,5 iso 1600 and 3200, 1/250-1/500, AWB
thubleau
Leading Member
Still crappy and unuseable,so why bother posting something we already know?
Noise is very bad,image is blurred and please when you post a pic for web use try to reduce it's size.
Noise is very bad,image is blurred and please when you post a pic for web use try to reduce it's size.
Jamie154594
Senior Member
Were you panning as you took this? It seems that everything but the subject (skater in the center) is blurry. I'm curious why you'd pan?
' We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. '
--
' We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. '
- George Orwell
Mickey64564
Senior Member
Those images look great considering the lighting conditions. With a little noise reduction, sharpening and levels, most of those shots look stellar. Maybe you didn't notice that he was shooting at ISO 3200 and 1/250?? Or maybe you're jealous that you don't have a 20D. Either way, let's try to keep things a little more civil.
Michael
P.S. Looking at the EXIF data, all of the ones I've seen say ISO 1600. Did you increase the exposure in post by one stop, or are they all really just ISO 1600?
Equipment list in my profile
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/gallery
http://www.michaelmoore.ca (Weddings)
Michael
P.S. Looking at the EXIF data, all of the ones I've seen say ISO 1600. Did you increase the exposure in post by one stop, or are they all really just ISO 1600?
--
Equipment list in my profile
http://www.morpheusmultimedia.com/gallery
http://www.michaelmoore.ca (Weddings)
Daniel185158
Forum Enthusiast
Why bother bitching about it?
If i don't like it keep it to yourself. Noone is forcing you to look at it.
Geez grow up!
If i don't like it keep it to yourself. Noone is forcing you to look at it.
Geez grow up!
Daniel185158
Forum Enthusiast
Hi!
No the exif says 1600 then in cfn it says i used the high iso setting. Don't know why that is though.
No the exif says 1600 then in cfn it says i used the high iso setting. Don't know why that is though.
Hi thanks for your pics, they are really interesting.
i took the liberty to postp the first one:
yours,
Cyril
http://www.cyrilp.fr.vu
i took the liberty to postp the first one:
--
yours,
Cyril
http://www.cyrilp.fr.vu
DaveKennedy
Forum Enthusiast
Daniel, I agree, it's ABSOLUTELY USABLE. Thebleau needs to not say anything since there's nothing he can add that's constructive.
I appreciate you posting the images and think that you've done a favor for those of us who wanted to see images from the 20D in a real world setting and not some pictures of a kitten or someone's kids, there's nothing wrong with those subjects, but it's important for someone to post images that more reflect what this camera will be used for.
Dave K
I appreciate you posting the images and think that you've done a favor for those of us who wanted to see images from the 20D in a real world setting and not some pictures of a kitten or someone's kids, there's nothing wrong with those subjects, but it's important for someone to post images that more reflect what this camera will be used for.
Dave K
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum