Oh My! What the XT Can Do!

yes for dance I can imagine, but for sport? I doubt that you want
too much motion blur in your subjects.
I think being on these forums has made me too critical. Recently looking at Number (the Sports Illustrated-type mag in Japan) it struck me how many shots were "blurred" - even the faces - a lot are night-time soccer pics (surely with the likes of the 400/2.8) and from my own experience, I would guess they were in the 1/500s or less range. For pro sports, that is really a bit too slow if you want crisp shots, but clearly even the Japanese think they are good enough for full-page sized prints - perhaps there is a real asthetic for action shots that invites a reasonable amount of motion blur?

--
-CW
 
The pictures are good enough for a magazine, perhaps, and softness isn't as big of a problem. Unless it's National Geographic, and even then, the images are not always tack sharp. They don't need to be.

But when a crazy screaming parent at a wrestling match wants a print, the picture better be good. Sure, they appreciate that I shot it for free, but still, they are ruthless.

--
Florindo
http://www.pbase.com/florindo
http://florindo.smugmug.com
 
The center subject is sharp, The others are just out of focus plane. Foucs was not perfect, it was too dark for autofocus, I manual focused. It is very hard to focus with my eyes in dark too. Some pictures, I completely focused wrong.

Jun
 
It depends on the sports. If there is a lot running as most sports, You definitely need high speed. I think wrestling, on average, is slower than fast dancing. It might be ok for lower speed.

Jun
 
I have not shoot sports much. I have shot 1/300 at 75mm-80mm range, a lot pictures completely stopped action. They are mostly boring. For the sports, I would think the same (although I have no experience in taking sports photo). A bit motion blur means that person is actually moving.

Jun
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top