GH3 does hockey.

[dmanthree]

OK, my first attempt at sports with the GH3. While the action was distant and didn't really challenge the AF system, the camera performed very well. The reddish cast you see on some shots is due to the damned video ring that circles the rink and lights up red, all too often casting the color on the ice. Also, I forgot to compensage for the ice, and underexposed nearly every shot by about 3/4 stop.

FWIW, UMass Lowell defeated Boston University 1-0 in an excellent game.









































I can't figure how to post a link to the album, but there's more in my gallery if you're interested.





--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.

 

[DaveLemi]

Great pictures! What lens did you use? BTW- as my daughter was flipping through the channels she saw this game and asked, why aren't the Bruins playing? I was surprised she noticed.

 

[MValore]

Nice shots. The 35-100 appears to have done a good job for such a fast game. I'm hoping to get to a few games myself and try the 40-150/OMD combo. Go Penguins.

 

[dmanthree]

DaveLemi wrote:

Great pictures! What lens did you use? BTW- as my daughter was flipping through the channels she saw this game and asked, why aren't the Bruins playing? I was surprised she noticed.

Iused the 12-35 for the wide shot, and the 35-100 for all the others. Still getting used to the camera for sports. It's good, but you need to learn to time the action shots since there is more of a delay in shutter response than the SLRs, like the 7D have.

 

[dmanthree]

MValore wrote:

Nice shots. The 35-100 appears to have done a good job for such a fast game. I'm hoping to get to a few games myself and try the 40-150/OMD combo. Go Penguins.

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

Good pictures, and the metering worked fine, with all that white ice.

---

 

[dmanthree]

Aleo Veuliah wrote:

Good pictures, and the metering worked fine, with all that white ice.

Kinda sort of. I had to boost most pictures up about 3/4 stops in post to get it right. The real challenge was white balance. It was low, around 3250K, but required a little color adjustment to remove a greenish cast. Not an issue with the camera, though. I had this issue in the Garden with a 5D II and a Nikon D300s. The problem isn't the camera, it was me. I normally compensate, manually, for the bright ice. I just forgot to this time. Again, no big deal.

The real challenge is shutter response. The GH3 does not fire nearly as quick as a fast DSLR since the shutter has to close, fire, and open again. Timing is difficult. No worries. I'll get used to it. Until the global shutter is a reality, I guess.

 

[tedolf]

dmanthree wrote:

OK, my first attempt at sports with the GH3. While the action was distant and didn't really challenge the AF system, the camera performed very well. The reddish cast you see on some shots is due to the damned video ring that circles the rink and lights up red, all too often casting the color on the ice. Also, I forgot to compensage for the ice, and underexposed nearly every shot by about 3/4 stop.

FWIW, UMass Lowell defeated Boston University 1-0 in an excellent game.











I can't figure how to post a link to the album, but there's more in my gallery if you're interested.

--
-------------------------------------------------
No Signature.

these need to be substantially cropped.



Tedolph

 

[Cy Cheze]

The photographs are OK, but no layperson will confuse them with commercial grade sports images they see every day and take for granted.

That, one can argue, is an unkind observation to levy against at guy sitting in the cheap seats and using a mere 100mm lens. Yes, unkind and unfair. But people "expect" sports shots to be close to the action or closely cropped. After a few wide shots of the arena or of hockey players, which are fine, there's got to be something else to "score."

Hockey is notoriously difficult to photograph in interesting ways from a distance. Spectators use their focal vision to track the key players, puck, and goals. A camera does this very poorly, unless one is very close and crops. If you tried to use a 300mm telephoto lens from where you were sitting, you would probably have gotten blurry shots or only a few hit and miss "keepers." Isn't is also true that other players and referees are going to be between you and the puck or goal at least 70% of the time?

Maybe you can get closer to the action and players at a mid-season HS or minor league match.

 

[Gregm61]

With the kind of lighting you get in the NHL arenas, if you have a lens like the 100-300mm f4-5.6, you might wanna give it a try. I took my E-M5 and the 75-300 to an NHL game this season. Seats were a little lower than yours but still above the glass and the higher ISO settings worked well with the E-M5. I would think it'd be a cinch with the GH3 and 100-300 as well, if you have that lens.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 

[tedolf]

Cy Cheze wrote:

The photographs are OK, but no layperson will confuse them with commercial grade sports images they see every day and take for granted.

That, one can argue, is an unkind observation to levy against at guy sitting in the cheap seats and using a mere 100mm lens. Yes, unkind and unfair. But people "expect" sports shots to be close to the action or closely cropped. After a few wide shots of the arena or of hockey players, which are fine, there's got to be something else to "score."

Hockey is notoriously difficult to photograph in interesting ways from a distance. Spectators use their focal vision to track the key players, puck, and goals. A camera does this very poorly, unless one is very close and crops. If you tried to use a 300mm telephoto lens from where you were sitting, you would probably have gotten blurry shots or only a few hit and miss "keepers." Isn't is also true that other players and referees are going to be between you and the puck or goal at least 70% of the time?

Maybe you can get closer to the action and players at a mid-season HS or minor league match.

crops these, they will be much better.



If the composition and "capture" are good, then they don't need to be super sharp to be engaging photo's.



Right now the action is too small and too much extraneous stuff is included.



Nothing some cropping couldn't fix.



tedolph

 

[dmanthree]

Cy Cheze wrote:

The photographs are OK, but no layperson will confuse them with commercial grade sports images they see every day and take for granted.

I made no such claim. They are snapshots from a seat high up, so they are what they are.

That, one can argue, is an unkind observation to levy against at guy sitting in the cheap seats and using a mere 100mm lens. Yes, unkind and unfair. But people "expect" sports shots to be close to the action or closely cropped. After a few wide shots of the arena or of hockey players, which are fine, there's got to be something else to "score."

Hockey is notoriously difficult to photograph in interesting ways from a distance. Spectators use their focal vision to track the key players, puck, and goals. A camera does this very poorly, unless one is very close and crops. If you tried to use a 300mm telephoto lens from where you were sitting, you would probably have gotten blurry shots or only a few hit and miss "keepers." Isn't is also true that other players and referees are going to be between you and the puck or goal at least 70% of the time?

Maybe you can get closer to the action and players at a mid-season HS or minor league match.

If I have a free ticket, sure!

 

[dmanthree]

tedolf wrote:

Cy Cheze wrote:

The photographs are OK, but no layperson will confuse them with commercial grade sports images they see every day and take for granted.

That, one can argue, is an unkind observation to levy against at guy sitting in the cheap seats and using a mere 100mm lens. Yes, unkind and unfair. But people "expect" sports shots to be close to the action or closely cropped. After a few wide shots of the arena or of hockey players, which are fine, there's got to be something else to "score."

Hockey is notoriously difficult to photograph in interesting ways from a distance. Spectators use their focal vision to track the key players, puck, and goals. A camera does this very poorly, unless one is very close and crops. If you tried to use a 300mm telephoto lens from where you were sitting, you would probably have gotten blurry shots or only a few hit and miss "keepers." Isn't is also true that other players and referees are going to be between you and the puck or goal at least 70% of the time?

Maybe you can get closer to the action and players at a mid-season HS or minor league match.

crops these, they will be much better.

If the composition and "capture" are good, then they don't need to be super sharp to be engaging photo's.

Right now the action is too small and too much extraneous stuff is included.

Nothing some cropping couldn't fix.

The are what I wanted them to be.

The group shots purposely included the surrounding media since I had a bad angle on each shot. Zooming in or cropping tighter on the group shot in front of the flag would show nothing but the sides of their heads. Including the shooters gives it a sense of place and a feel for the moment.

The action shots are some of the few I took since I was more interested in watching the game than shooting.

 

[dmanthree]

Agreed on the 100-300. If I get back there I bring that along for a few shots. The 35-100 is nice, but I could have used more reach.

 

[Aleo Veuliah]

dmanthree wrote:

Aleo Veuliah wrote:

Good pictures, and the metering worked fine, with all that white ice.

Kinda sort of. I had to boost most pictures up about 3/4 stops in post to get it right. The real challenge was white balance. It was low, around 3250K, but required a little color adjustment to remove a greenish cast. Not an issue with the camera, though. I had this issue in the Garden with a 5D II and a Nikon D300s. The problem isn't the camera, it was me. I normally compensate, manually, for the bright ice. I just forgot to this time. Again, no big deal.

The real challenge is shutter response. The GH3 does not fire nearly as quick as a fast DSLR since the shutter has to close, fire, and open again. Timing is difficult. No worries. I'll get used to it. Until the global shutter is a reality, I guess.

 

[tedolf]

dmanthree wrote:

tedolf wrote:

Cy Cheze wrote:

The photographs are OK, but no layperson will confuse them with commercial grade sports images they see every day and take for granted.

That, one can argue, is an unkind observation to levy against at guy sitting in the cheap seats and using a mere 100mm lens. Yes, unkind and unfair. But people "expect" sports shots to be close to the action or closely cropped. After a few wide shots of the arena or of hockey players, which are fine, there's got to be something else to "score."

Hockey is notoriously difficult to photograph in interesting ways from a distance. Spectators use their focal vision to track the key players, puck, and goals. A camera does this very poorly, unless one is very close and crops. If you tried to use a 300mm telephoto lens from where you were sitting, you would probably have gotten blurry shots or only a few hit and miss "keepers." Isn't is also true that other players and referees are going to be between you and the puck or goal at least 70% of the time?

Maybe you can get closer to the action and players at a mid-season HS or minor league match.

crops these, they will be much better.

If the composition and "capture" are good, then they don't need to be super sharp to be engaging photo's.

Right now the action is too small and too much extraneous stuff is included.

Nothing some cropping couldn't fix.

The are what I wanted them to be.

The group shots purposely included the surrounding media since I had a bad angle on each shot. Zooming in or cropping tighter on the group shot in front of the flag would show nothing but the sides of their heads. Including the shooters gives it a sense of place and a feel for the moment.

The action shots are some of the few I took since I was more interested in watching the game than shooting.