Decisions, decisions

koprol wrote:

Is second hand not an option? OM lenses are not an option I think because of manual focus.
If you will be very close to the side of the field tou might want to use some of you primes when the soccer players end up very near your position. Might even deliver a very nice action photo.

Almost all of my gear is secondhand or factory-refurbished already, and I would do that for any future purchases as well if possible.

But even a used or refurbished version of the 40-150mm f2.8 PRO would still set me back about $1,200 that I don't have.

bradevans wrote:

The lumix FZxxx series might be a better fit. Lesser sensor but greater zoom and f2.8

the panny 100-300 seems to be sharpest at 7.1 or 8, so that goes against you as well

can you get to same location ahead of the 11th for practice shooting? To me, what would make a shot good is more the moment you captured rather than the technical merits. I think the free kick shot is a good example of that You won't be selling these, so the bar is more on how you see it

smaller prints should counteract the long distance / large crops

and sometimes having more in the frame gives context - ie you wouldn't want every shot to have only a single player in the frame

will you be able to "roam" or largely at a fixed spot? Is monopod an option? You might try different lenses as the players move closer and farther. The 45/f1.8 might be great when the action is close(r) but would be tough if that's all you had

good luck - I'm sure you'll learn a lot. Be sure to have fun too

Thanks. I've shot other games at this location before, but always from the stands right behind the goal. (And I'm talking the first three rows of stands if not the very front, so pretty close stands.) So I'm pretty familiar with the venue and how things work there. Our group will meet up there a couple hours before game time, so that should give me some time to set up and get a feel for the equipment. I would probably have my rental start a couple days ahead of the game and perhaps take it to the zoo, etc.

I will benefit from the ability to roam around, particularly along the sidelines so I'm not always shooting down the field. I don't have a monopod, but I could bring my tripod with me.

I do have the 45mm f1.8 already, and perhaps the sideline access could make it a more viable option later in the game when it really gets dark.

The good news -- sunset for that night is set for 9:14 PM, and it's a 7:30 game. So I should be able to get some halfway decent light even going into the second half.

It's interesting that you mention the FZ series. I have considered this option. Both of these cameras have a longer full-frame equivalent maximum focal length (600mm for the FZ200 and 400mm for the FZ1000) than my current gear (300mm).

So there's the FZ200 that's a constant f2.8, but the sensor is just 1/2.3". So that would cost me at least two stops in noise if not more, which puts me pretty well back where I started or even a step backward. It would be a hell of a backup / secondary camera, but it's not replacing my E-PL5 especially in situations like this. That extra reach could be useful for wildlife though, but so could the Olympus 75-300mm / Panasonic 100-300mm for about the same amount of money.

The FZ1000 has a 1" sensor, so that would probably cost me one stop of light in terms of noise. The FZ1000 is interesting, but it's actually a range of f2.8-f4, so that dropoff occurs pretty early on in the zoom range. And that would put me pretty well back where I started too since we're talking f4 and not f2.8 at the telephoto end.

The Sony RX10 does have a constant f2.8 zoom, but that only goes to a 200mm equivalent focal length.

I actually almost never print photos at all. I usually just post them online. If something is really special I might print it and hang it on my wall, but I only have a few of those.

Lee Beasley wrote:

I'd have to go with Option #4, also. I shoot my grandchildren (gymnastics, dance) and, honestly, unless you have a fast lens, you're not going to be able to get the shutter speeds you need to keep up with the action. I find I need to shoot gymnastics at at least 1/400 and realistically, 1/500 or 1/600 is even better for the minimum, and even that doesn't entirely eliminate all the blurring in her extremities. At least it's not objectionable.

I have an older Olympus 50-200 non-SSD F2.8-3.5 and can usually manage some nice shots. It's heavy, but I can live with that. If I can get by with it, I'll mount my 75mm f1.8 lens. It gives me a lot more latitude, but, of course, it's a fixed focal length, which isn't always ideal.

To switch to m4/3 in the first place, I sold off all my DSLR gear. I sometimes think I should have kept a DSLR body and 70/200 f2.8 lens, but hindsight is always 20/20. I do appreciate the lighter weight of the mirrorless camera and lenses, so it's still all good.

Well, I noticed you have an E-M1 body, so that 50-200mm would work fine for you because the E-M1 has phase detect AF. My E-PL5 does not. Yes, it could autofocus, but not anywhere nearly as well as a true Micro Four Thirds lens.

I've heard great things about the 75mm f1.8 lens. Another one on my wish list.

I'd say you have realistic expectations and a limited budget. So this decision shouldn't be that hard.

We both know that soccer fields are huge, the action moves very quickly and it never stops. This makes it harder to shoot than football, which constantly starts and stops and has a "line of scrimmage" that they always return to. So you are right when you say this is challenging.

I think this is field that Indy Eleven plays on.

I think the best thing you have going for you is the press pass. If you look at the photo above you can see the photographers are almost on the field. This means, you probably can get pretty good results using the gear you already have, at least whenever the action is on your side of the field.

If you wanted to be able to shoot anything that happens on the field, then you probably would need a FF camera with a big white lens, but this isn't an option for you. Since you aren't selling your photos, spending a lot of money on upgrades just doesn't make a lot of sense. So here are your options if you stay with MFT:

1. For $0. Use what you have, and settle for the best shots you can get.
2. For $500. Get a 75-300mm II for more reach.
3. For $800. Get a 75mm f/1.8 for more speed.
4. For $1400. Get a 40-150mm PRO lens.
5. For $1700. Get a ZD 150 mm f/2.0 lens plus adapter.
6. For $1800. Get a 40-150mm PRO lens plus 1.4X teleconverter.
7. For $2000? Wait for the 300mm f/4.0 PRO
8. For $2300? Wait for the 300mm f/4.0 PRO plus 1.4X teleconverter.

My own personal choice would be to stay with the first three options, and start saving for option #4.

I really like the third option, the 75mm f/1.8 lens, because it would be so useful for other things, and a fast lens is great when things are moving quickly. Of course, this really limits your reach, but if you can shoot from the sidelines, you should be able to get some very good shots with 75mm.

Whatever you decide, have fun!

400trix wrote:

danieladougan wrote:

400trix wrote:

Option 4. Nothing else is even close.

Thanks. But, remember, it's Option 4 as a rental for three days, or one of the other options permanently. I simply don't have $1,800 to toss around for a lens / teleconverter.

It did just occur to me that I've had to switch to my 45mm f1.8 just to get anything when it gets dark there, so that's A LOT less reach and more cropping. So maybe aperture > focal length in this case. Hmmm, maybe I could save a little on the rental by not getting the teleconverter.

There's also the matter of wildlife, so wouldn't the longer lenses somewhat make up for the difference in aperture in those situations? Maybe not for the soccer game, but long term since I tend to do that more often.

It all depends on the results you want. You've got a chance to shoot professional sports, why use substandard equipment?

Sometimes the right decision is to rent. I've got a project coming up in two years that I simply will be unable to purchase the equipment to do, so I'm planning on renting 3 bodies and six lenses, and maybe a Phantom Flex if I can pull in some grant money, in order to get all of the shots that I need. Its better to have temporary use of the right equipment than permanent use of the wrong.

Working in a poorly lit stadium with a slow lens is simply going to be an exercise in frustration. Even the 40-150 + TC is going to a bit rough at 210-f/4. The 40-150 + TC + E-M1 (which you'll want to be using for sports) is a $200/week rental. With that setup, you'll get keepers, and you will learn a lot more than you will struggling with a camera that has very poor C-AF and weak ergonomics for sport.

From my point of view, it comes down to not wanting to find myself in a wonderful photographic opportunity, and then getting poor shots because my equipment wasn't up to snuff. Been there, done that. It wasn't fun.

So I ordered the 40-150mm f2.8 PRO lens as a rental.

On a scale of 1-10, how important is it for me to also rent the MC-14 teleconverter and/or the E-M1 camera body (considering I already have the E-PL5 and VF-4 viewfinder)? Just having a fast lens should get me a long way.

Is the E-M1 THAT MUCH better for sports shooting than the E-PL5? Because you lose a stop of light with the MC-14, is it really worth getting?

I'm just trying not to spend money unless there's a significant benefit to doing so for this experience.

Marty4650 wrote:

I'd say you have realistic expectations and a limited budget. So this decision shouldn't be that hard.

We both know that soccer fields are huge, the action moves very quickly and it never stops. This makes it harder to shoot than football, which constantly starts and stops and has a "line of scrimmage" that they always return to. So you are right when you say this is challenging.

I think this is field that Indy Eleven plays on.

I think the best thing you have going for you is the press pass. If you look at the photo above you can see the photographers are almost on the field. This means, you probably can get pretty good results using the gear you already have, at least whenever the action is on your side of the field.

If you wanted to be able to shoot anything that happens on the field, then you probably would need a FF camera with a big white lens, but this isn't an option for you. Since you aren't selling your photos, spending a lot of money on upgrades just doesn't make a lot of sense. So here are your options if you stay with MFT:

1. For $0. Use what you have, and settle for the best shots you can get.
2. For $500. Get a 75-300mm II for more reach.
3. For $800. Get a 75mm f/1.8 for more speed.
4. For $1400. Get a 40-150mm PRO lens.
5. For $1700. Get a ZD 150 mm f/2.0 lens plus adapter.
6. For $1800. Get a 40-150mm PRO lens plus 1.4X teleconverter.
7. For $2000? Wait for the 300mm f/4.0 PRO
8. For $2300? Wait for the 300mm f/4.0 PRO plus 1.4X teleconverter.

My own personal choice would be to stay with the first three options, and start saving for option #4.

I really like the third option, the 75mm f/1.8 lens, because it would be so useful for other things, and a fast lens is great when things are moving quickly. Of course, this really limits your reach, but if you can shoot from the sidelines, you should be able to get some very good shots with 75mm.

Whatever you decide, have fun!

Yep, that's the place: Michael A. Carroll Track and Soccer Stadium. Those photographers are standing on the running track that surrounds the pitch (and annoys the team since they want fans to be able to sit closer).

If you look at the temporary bleachers on the left behind the goal, that's where I've always shot from...usually right at the very front. That's called the Brickyard Battalion section: it's where the really rowdy fans are and where the tickets are cheapest. I've gotten a lot of great shots of the colorful fans, it's just the game action that has mostly eluded me.

When it has gotten dark in the second half of a game, I've had to switch from my 40-150mm f4-5.6 to my 45mm f1.8, and even then I had to shoot at ISO 6400 to get a relatively fast shutter speed. ISO 6400 is actually pretty decent as long as you don't have to crop much (and, with only a 90mm equivalent focal length and standing behind one goal, I have had to crop A LOT). The 75mm f1.8 lens is somewhat longer, but still not nearly long enough without massive cropping. I usually have my 40-150mm fully extended and still wish for more zoom beyond that.

This photo is of the players entering the field, so the photographers have gathered around them. During the game, I usually see one or two pros with huge lenses gathered right below me behind the goal...and there are some behind the opposite goal as well. I plan to roam a bit with my special access.

So I ended up renting the 40-150mm f2.8 as was suggested. It's a tremendous lens.

Someone also suggested renting the OM-D E-M1 as an upgrade over my Pen E-PL5 + VF-4 viewfinder.

I thought renting the camera body in addition to the lens was a bit too much money to spend, so I did not rent the E-M1.

Unfortunately I still had a ton of dud shots in which the camera decided to focus on the background instead of the action on the field. My keeper rate was extremely low, and I suspect having the E-M1 would have helped with that a lot. But it also might be a technique thing for me that I don't seem to understand...any advice?

One of the disadvantages of having an f2.8 lens for shooting sports is the increased risk of autofocusing errors caused by shallow depth of field, and I definitely experienced a lot of that. But it sure came in handy for the second half after the sun went down.

I shot in shutter priority mode with C-AF + TR for autofocus. I set the aperture at f2.8, the shutter speed at 1/1000 early on and then 1/400 at the end of the game...probably by accident because it should have been at 1/500. Auto ISO settings allowed up to 6400. Someone gave me a tip to overexpose slightly at +0.3 EV to preserve fine detail.

These are my best results.

f2.8 1/400 ISO 5000 +0.3 EV

f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 6400, +0.3 EV

f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 5000, +0.3 EV

f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 640, +0.3 EV

f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 640, +0.3 EV

f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 640, +0.3 EV

f2.8, 1/1000, ISO 640, +0.3 EV