how to shoot on a bright sunny day?

[gryphonslair99]

What about this filter?

Let's see........ 93 mph fast ball propelled off the end of a bat in the hands of major leaguer who swung a little early sending the ball at over 120 mph into the crowd about 100 to 150 feet from the plate?????????????
:idea:
Naaahhh still need that titanium filter I'm thinking. With out working out all the math I'm guessing that the base ball has more impact force at that distance than a steel ball dropped from 50 inches.

Neat find though, hadn't seen those yet. :thumbsup:

[Anbesol]

Wow, thats a massive bummer. How close was he when that happened? Where was he?

That filter is really cool, don't think it would have helped the guy who was hit though. How did the camera handle the impact, did it survive?

A focus ring at infinity does not mean everything in front of a lens is in focus.

I guess you could get technical with the resolving power of a lens, which all in all is another irrelevance considering the matter of bokeh being the point of issue. I'm staying on point on this, you're heading into tangents, I still support the idea that f8 shooting on an f5.6 kit lens is a good idea, do you have a case against that?

[gryphonslair99]

=Anbesol]Wow, thats a massive bummer. How close was he when that happened? Where was he?

Around 100-150 feet from home plate on the first base side along the railing with all the other publication photographers.

That filter is really cool, don't think it would have helped the guy who was hit though. How did the camera handle the impact, did it survive?

If you look at the impact spot on the lens you will see a hole and an element behind it that is destroyed. On Canon's big glass like the 300 f2.8, 400 f2.8 etc. the front glass is actually a built in safety filter of optical glass designed for the lens. That is the one that has the hole in it. The one that is shattered is the actual first optical element that was being protected. My 400 f2.8 uses a 52mm filter that is held in a holder at the camera end of the lens.

I guess you could get technical with the resolving power of a lens, which all in all is another irrelevance considering the matter of bokeh being the point of issue. I'm staying on point on this, you're heading into tangents, I still support the idea that f8 shooting on an f5.6 kit lens is a good idea, do you have a case against that?

No I do not support the idea of using f8 on a f5.6 lens even a kit lens as a norm or as a good idea in the situation posted by the OP. Kit lens or not composition is one of the large factors that seperats a photograph from, for the lack of a better word, snap shot.

The difference in the DOF is too great. I also do not subscribe to the theory that an f5.6 lens has a sweet spot of f8. I will support that every lens has a sweet spot, but every lens is different and every lens should be tested by the owner to discover the true sweet spot for that particular lens. It may or may not be what others have found.

I also will still advise that you use the best setting for the situation. For sports, wide open or very close to wide open is the norm. The difference in the DOF between f5.6 and f6.4 is a lot smaller than f5.6 to f8. Isolation of the action is an important part the compositon for getting excellent sports/action shots.

Picking the f stop in any shot is the same as picking the ISO, shutter speed, focus point. You pick the best possible from each to get the right shot. If the sweet spot is in the range great, but if not then you go for the best settings to compose the shot in it's entirety.

I am guessing that the lens you used to take the bee shot was a zoom not a prime. I am also guessing that since you had the ability to get to f4 in the 160mm range it was probably something like a Sony 70-200 f2.8, Tamron's 70-200 f2.8, Sigman 70-200 f2.8. Since I don't shoot Sony it could possibly be the18-250mm F3.5-6.3 or the 18-200mm F3.5-6.3, but if so I would be suprised if you could get f4 at 160mm. I don't know since I'm not a Sony shooter but that would be stretching it at least for the 18-200. I'm not fond of zooms with a large range as those two so I do not have any hands on experience with something like them.

Be that as it may from what I do know the sweet spot for the Sony 70-200 is in the f5.6-8 range, the Tamron I have no idea but I would venture that it is in the same range. The Sigma is reported to be 6.8 or a little highter. The 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 seems to be around f11, the 18-200mm F3.5-6.3 seem to be reported between f7.1 and f10. So why f4 for the bee shot. Why not closer to the sweet spot of the lens you used?

I would venture to say that it would be for composition, whick I completly undersand and agree with. It is a good photograph. I would also venture to guess that if you had shot it at f8 it would be noticably different. And from looking at the photograph, I can't imaine a larger dof adding to your photograph.

[Anbesol]

Youre making this argument just a bit too convoluted and pointless. Virtually every lens performs and resolves better one stop down is my point - and you can't go looking for bokeh where its not to be found. DoF is very important, and particularly having as little as needed, I certainly agree. But on a kit lens the infinite focal distance is something of 50-70 feet, looking for bokeh on such a lens at greater than 80ft is irrelevant.

So why f4 for the bee shot. Why not closer to the sweet spot of the lens you used?

Obviously a rhetorical question. Shot at f4 because of that creamy bokeh goodness. I think you misunderstand me, I love bokeh, and I think its just as important as whats in DoF. In this scenario - using the sweet spot would have made for a plain and boring bee on a stick, but that bokeh adds drama to the shot, it adds an abstract element that firmly emphasizes what little is in focus. The shifting graduations of softness add an impact that transforms the image from mundane into extraordinary. I shot that wide open, as I shoot many things on that lens - the Minolta 70-210 f/4. I'd like an f2.8 telephoto zoom, but until I can afford the 70-200G - nothing else can replace my 70-210 f4.

I also do not subscribe to the theory that an f5.6 lens has a sweet spot of f8.

I never said it was. It performs better than 5.6. Anything more narrow than f8 is just too pointlessly slow for sports shooting. I only said f8 in this situation because of his current lens.

From one Kansan to another.

[Singletracklovr]

What about this filter?

I luv the new Hoya HD filters and purchased one after seeing PR's coverage on it.

I think you guys have lost the OP with the side discussion on bokah and DOF.
IMO, when you are learning a new camera and go to an event that is not easly repeated I would use one of the cameras auto exposure modes.