A sample shot or two would really be the only way for us to know what you're talking about. Any other info would help too, like camera settings, what you were hoping for, etc.
most of the time the reason your shots don't have that "pro" look is because they have too much depth of field. DOF is how much of the shot is actually in focus outside of the subject. With a lens like yours, the background is going to be fairly in focus while if a pro is shooting with a 400mm f/2.8, the background is going to be completely out of focus, making the subject seem even sharper and more isolated. It's all in the lens equipment. Bodies don't matter all that much. So to answer your question, it's your lens.
you shot at iso 800 with a d40, with f 5.6 at 240mm
the pro one was iso 800 ( prob on a pro body) at f 2.8 at 400mm
the pro version like brent said has a much shallower dof due to the f 2.8 and your f5.6 also your d40 at iso 800 has alot more noise then the new pro bodies. also 1/200 shutter speed wasn't fast enough to freeze the players feet etc. also yours could use a pp boost to the colors etc so it doesn't look so flat.
Yes you need a fast lens. go buy a cheap 50mm and set it on 1.8 and you will see the differences.
here is my post showing the differences. Beside you lens fstop at 300 mm is what 5.6? with a 2.8 you shutter speed would double rain drop differnces between two lenses
yes pro- body will help to cause you want a super fast shutter speed. sorry but your D40is a basic camera not intended for high end sports photo that you want. Save up for a good lens sigma is cheaper then nikon or even tamron. If you want rent a lens to see which is better. You might loose a little but you can find the one you want.
here is some prices. http://borrowlenses.com/
D700
85mm 1.8 D
24-70 2.8 ED
70-200 2.8 ED VRII
2xSB900
Elinchrom Ranger RX 1100watt heads.
so if u were to recommend a lens for me to buy it would be Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8?for just seeing the difference but if u were to recommend a lens for sport it would be??
any thing that is just 2.8cause like your lens, it says 4.5-5.6 this means at 70 mm you max ap is 4.5 then when your at 300 your at 5.6.
IF you can afford it this is the lens you would want. But yo might have to sell a kidney
here are prices also, Heck sell you lens and get this http://www.google.com/products?q=AF+...firefox-a&um=1
First, the shutter speed is too slow. You have motion blur (look at the left hand of the main subject). You need a minimum of 1/250 to stop human motion. The pro shot you posted had a shutter speed of 1/1000.
Second, it appears to me that your own movement is causing the entire photo to be a bit blurry. Partly from a low shutter speed. The other part appears to possibly be from you panning along with the players. I say this as I can not find one spot in your photo that is in focus. That indicates that you focus point was not locked somewhere else other than on the player in the middle. Otherwise I would expect to find something in focus.
To improve your focus with the lens you will have is to bump your ISO up higher than 800. It may make for a noiser shot, but I would rather have a shot that is in focus with some noise than a shot free of noise that is out of focus. I can alway correct for noise in post processing.
Also, set your focus to AF-C or continuous focus. The exif data shows you were in AF-A mode.
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom-Nikkor would that be more suitable for sports
IMO, you're looking at the problem from a wrong angle.
What lens to use depends on where you shoot and what you want. If you're close to the player and the audience is rather far away from you and the player, your 70-300 f5.6 will still give what you call the "pro" look, which, it seems to me, is a shallow depth of field. The opposite end of it is when the player is pretty close to the audience and you the photographer are far away from them. Then it's unlikely that you'd get that "pro" look, or a pro look that is not exactly like that.
Will 80-200 f2.8 a better lens than 70-300 f4/5.6 VR for sports? Depends. If general, that f2.8 will give you a shallower depth of field. But if you're shooting in a small gym, both may not get you that very shallow depth of field look that you're after. Why? Because the players are likely also closer to the audience. The background could still be out-of-focus but may not be as out-of-focus as you want. Then again, f2.8 allows you to use faster shutter speed and lower ISO. In that regard, it definitely is better than 70-300 f4/5.6, especially when the lighting is also not that good to begin with. But then, if you're in that environment, you may be better using 85 f1.8 since you may not even need the long end of the 80-200mm anyhow. And as mentioned, in some situations, you could even use a 50 f1.8, too. The 85 f1.8 or the 50 is quite affordable, too, and come with a larger aperture than either of the zoom lenses that you mentioned.
Then if you're shooting in a big, outdoor field, you may even need a 400, 600 tele just to get the reach.
So, IMO, at the end of the day, it depends.
Then there're all those techiques that you need to have for that "pro" look that you're after, too
i would NOT recommend the 50mm f/1.8 if you are going to be shooting field sports. And it looks like you are. You're better off with your slow lens now than a lens that won't get you anywhere near the action. if you're going to be shooting bball or walkaround stuff, a 50mm is fine, but not for field sports. I generally shoot either at 280mm or 300mm and still wish i were closer.
do u think that the 50mm wiykd be fine for shooting vollyball in a gym?
I wouldn't use a 50mm for volleyball or basketball unless #1: your right up close to the action #2: your manual focusing The focus of the D40 & 50mm are just too slow for fast action. For a general all around good lens for sports inside and outside the 80-200 would be your best bet.
Also, with practice and proper technique you can stop action at shutter speeds much less than 200. Even cars moving at high speed can be shot at much lower shutter speeds. It does take a lot of practice. Even with the D40 you'd be much better off with the 80-200 than the lens you have now.
Part of the of the problem with your example is a lack of light, without light your present setup just can't focus fast enough. The lens won't give the kind of background you want no matter what though as it's not designed to to,
JS
Canon 1D
Canon 1D MK II N
Canon 70-200mm USM IS f2.8
Canon 200mm f1.8 USM
Canon 300mm f2.8 USM IS
Canon 28-300mm USM IS f3.5-5.6
Canon 50mm f1.8
Vivitar 19-35mm f3.5-5.6
In the end, sports photography, like many other photographic specialties, is not an easy discipline. Pro sports photographers (as well as talent) have years of experience. I am not sure all the advice, no matter how good, on equipment is going to make up for that. You need to practice, practice, and practice some more - and gradually you will see what works and what doesn't.
In general terms though (just reiterating what other people have said) - you need
a) a FAST shutter speed to freeze the action - setting a fast shutter speed will automatically increase the aperture which throws the background nicely out of focus
b) try to ensure that the background is not too distracting
c) crop and straighten
yes pro- body will help to cause you want a super fast shutter speed. sorry but your D40is a basic camera not intended for high end sports photo that you want.
I'm sure most people here know that I'm not much of a sports photographer, but I don't follow your logic. A D40 is perfectly capable of a fast shutter speed like 1/1000, just as any other Nikon out there - even my Coolpix (I think). I'll bet the D40 produces a lot cleaner files than something like the original D1 or even the D1X or D1H, which were built on the Nikon F5 film body. The F5 has a really fast and accurate AF system, although the newest top of the line cameras are even better.
What you do gain with a "pro" body is faster and more accurate autofocus. When you're following something that moves fast and irregularly, and maybe occasionally disappears from view (football player running with the ball, etc) then you have a tough shooting situation. The best AF systems can stay locked on that one player, wherever he/she goes. That's where a pro DSLR will have some advantage, but to keep the price down you'll be looking an older model and the trade-off will be image quality.
I'm not suggesting that you buy a new camera - not at all - just wanted to explain. A faster lens ("faster" as in larger maximum aperture like f2.8) is probably what you want. Back to those who shoot sports...
The photo data said the image was taken at 1/200th of a second, too slow of a shutter speed! You need to get up into 1/1000th of a second. Besides you need to be at least 1/(focal length) for hand held telephoto but for sports you need to have much faster shutter speeds.
GRF
Panorama Madness:
Nikon D800, 50mm F1.4D AF, 16-35mm, 28-200mm & 70-300mm
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Mitch45
