S2 Pro sports test results

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Nice images .. good eye
get a copy of Neat Image to remove the High ISO noise ..
its really good and not expensive
have fun
gmd

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice and kind comments, GMD.

I have looked at Neat Image before and, yes, it can improve results (although I'd need to spend a good deal of time learning how to really get the best out of it).

However, I must be in need of a CPU/motherboard upgrade as my Athlon 1200 (with 768 Mb RAM) took almost five minutes to process a 15 Mb file. On a sports assignment I wouldn't have time to use it on the final selection of images - any newspaper picture desk would wear out my mobile wondering where the pix were!

I don't find the noise level of the S2 unacceptable. Certainly, I'd like no noise at all but when I compare pictures taken with pushed film I marvel at the latest technology. I wouldn't go back to film for, as they say, all the tea in China.

Perhaps opening up half a stop might reduce the noise when photographing black players (digital noise can be really bad in shadow/underexposed areas as you can see from my third picture, which was at least half a stop out because my finger accidently staretd 'playing' with the thumbwheel!). I certainly did that using film but I'm conscious that digital responds more like transparency than negative film: burn out the highlights and you've had it. Still, half a stop...

GMD said:

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hello!
very good photos, but wich lens did you use?
Ciao Gerhard

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Chris Tofalos said:

I have looked at Neat Image before and, yes, it can improve results
(although I'd need to spend a good deal of time learning how to
really get the best out of it).

However, I must be in need of a CPU/motherboard upgrade as my
Athlon 1200 (with 768 Mb RAM) took almost five minutes to process a
15 Mb file. On a sports assignment I wouldn't have time to use it
on the final selection of images - any newspaper picture desk would
wear out my mobile wondering where the pix were!

I don't find the noise level of the S2 unacceptable. Certainly, I'd
like no noise at all but when I compare pictures taken with pushed
film I marvel at the latest technology. I wouldn't go back to film
for, as they say, all the tea in China.

Perhaps opening up half a stop might reduce the noise when
photographing black players (digital noise can be really bad in
shadow/underexposed areas as you can see from my third picture,
which was at least half a stop out because my finger accidently
staretd 'playing' with the thumbwheel!). I certainly did that using
film but I'm conscious that digital responds more like transparency
than negative film: burn out the highlights and you've had it.
Still, half a stop...

GMD said:

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--I agree with you that Neat Image is much too slow to be of any practical value. Fred Miranda has noise reduction plug-ins that are reasonable effective and much faster.

JoeR

Hi Gerhard

Lenses used were an 85mm f1.8 (1/500 @ f2) for most shots plus a non-AFS 80-200 f2.8 (1/250 @ f2.8) for close ups of free throws. 1600 ISO for all with custom white balance. I sometimes use a 50mm f1.4 for basketball.

Windows XP users can get an amazing amount of detail about a photograph by right-clicking on an image and choosing properties. Both the S1 and S2 provide everything from ISO rating to exposure details, etc.

gerrisim said:

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I tried to remove ISO noise simply by going to lab mode and slightly blur one or both of the color channels. Doesn't work for all shots, but some come out quite good! And this is way faster than NI.

Maybe fredmiranda's uses similar tricks ??

Sjoerd

Chris Tofalos said:

I have looked at Neat Image before and, yes, it can improve results
(although I'd need to spend a good deal of time learning how to
really get the best out of it).

However, I must be in need of a CPU/motherboard upgrade as my
Athlon 1200 (with 768 Mb RAM) took almost five minutes to process a
15 Mb file. On a sports assignment I wouldn't have time to use it
on the final selection of images - any newspaper picture desk would
wear out my mobile wondering where the pix were!

I don't find the noise level of the S2 unacceptable. Certainly, I'd
like no noise at all but when I compare pictures taken with pushed
film I marvel at the latest technology. I wouldn't go back to film
for, as they say, all the tea in China.

Perhaps opening up half a stop might reduce the noise when
photographing black players (digital noise can be really bad in
shadow/underexposed areas as you can see from my third picture,
which was at least half a stop out because my finger accidently
staretd 'playing' with the thumbwheel!). I certainly did that using
film but I'm conscious that digital responds more like transparency
than negative film: burn out the highlights and you've had it.
Still, half a stop...

GMD said:

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You can use a similar technique in RGB mode, too. The blue channel is usually the one with most noise. However, all methods seem to result in loss of sharpness/detail. What we need is some 'smarter' software.

In the meantime, so long as you get the exposure right (there's nothing noisier than lightened underexposed shadow areas) we'll have to live with noise. At least it's not as bad as it used to be: the S2 is certainly an improvment over the S1 with regard to noise.

Suredeath said:

Maybe fredmiranda's uses similar tricks ??

Sjoerd

Chris Tofalos said:

I have looked at Neat Image before and, yes, it can improve results
(although I'd need to spend a good deal of time learning how to
really get the best out of it).

However, I must be in need of a CPU/motherboard upgrade as my
Athlon 1200 (with 768 Mb RAM) took almost five minutes to process a
15 Mb file. On a sports assignment I wouldn't have time to use it
on the final selection of images - any newspaper picture desk would
wear out my mobile wondering where the pix were!

I don't find the noise level of the S2 unacceptable. Certainly, I'd
like no noise at all but when I compare pictures taken with pushed
film I marvel at the latest technology. I wouldn't go back to film
for, as they say, all the tea in China.

Perhaps opening up half a stop might reduce the noise when
photographing black players (digital noise can be really bad in
shadow/underexposed areas as you can see from my third picture,
which was at least half a stop out because my finger accidently
staretd 'playing' with the thumbwheel!). I certainly did that using
film but I'm conscious that digital responds more like transparency
than negative film: burn out the highlights and you've had it.
Still, half a stop...

GMD said:

Chris Tofalos said:

Previous attempts at action photography with the S2 Pro haven't
exactly impressed me. Some delay in pressing the shutter release
led to missed shots at my first floodlit soccer game.

However, I'm starting to get the hang of the camera and becoming a
little more confident in it's capabilities. As a professional, I
don't know any sport that tests photographers or their equipment
harder than basketball. In the UK, the light levels are appaling
and player movement is extremely rapid.

The shots below give some idea of what can be achieved in trying
circumstances (a standard sports hall with no particular special
lighting). the custom white balance also helped in giving
reasonable skin tones...







Note that the apparently static shot of the player taking a free
throw is actually the most difficult. You focus on the player's
face as he readies himself easily enough but as he shoots the ball
momentarily covers his face and, at the same time, he leans back
out of focus. The autofocus has, therefore, coped remarkably well.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks for the XP tip...I'll have to try it out.

Chris Tofalos said:

Windows XP users can get an amazing amount of detail about a
photograph by right-clicking on an image and choosing properties.
Both the S1 and S2 provide everything from ISO rating to exposure
details, etc.

Click to expand...

Has anyone compared RAW & JPG at 1600 ISO?

I saw on the review samples on this site that the high ISO Raw files looked much better on the charts than shooting JPG.

Has anybody got any real world examples of the difference that they could post?

Many thanks

Adrian.