Good tripod for sports photography

[DHMN69]

The AF-ON or setting custom function for AF-ON to * that Canon has really helps me with tracking and keeping the player with the ball in focus.. the lens doesn't go hunting on me that way usually. Much easier for tracking than finger slipping off the shutter half-pressed for the AF.

Again, I don't know if there's a feature of this sort available from Nikon?

[skydiver6]

Thank you Old Timer. I will try that. Tonight I will definitely have it on 2.8 since it's a night game. This is only for practice. I had told the editor I didn't think my equipment or I were ready for night stuff. In the past I have really struggled but I didn't have this lens yet. We'll see how it goes.

Donna

[JETA]

So sorry to hear about your injury JETA. A few years back a dad that was helping with the measurements on the side got taken out and busted up his leg very badly. He broke it and tore his ACL and had to have ACL reconstruction. That is always in the back of my mind when shooting pictures.

Good job on hand holding your f/2.8. I'm a small woman and now handling it like it's any ole' lense. It will get easier and easier.

My best advice for not getting tackled is if you are tracking the QB who is going out for a long pass, make sure the action isn't running at you for the pass. LOL

I'm still a little gimpy from the injuries to my leg, but luckily unlike your friend I avoided surgery.

Welcome to the board and I'm so glad there's another female here!

[skydiver6]

Thanks! I shot both a boys and girls soccer game and the girls game was at night and I was pretty happy with how the photos came out. I still see a lot of room for improvement but hopefully with practice and learning from you all I will get better. Here is a link to my photos in the online paper:
http://www.ashburnhamhometownnews.co...oysgirlssoccer

Thanks again!
Donna

[fidgety]

Thanks! I shot both a boys and girls soccer game and the girls game was at night and I was pretty happy with how the photos came out. I still see a lot of room for improvement but hopefully with practice and learning from you all I will get better. Here is a link to my photos in the online paper:
http://www.ashburnhamhometownnews.co...oysgirlssoccer

Thanks again!
Donna

Your photographs look pretty good. They do have some noise to them. Go online and download Neat Image and filter some of your snaps through them to get rid of the noise. I've just started messing around with the program and am still tweaking my settings but it seems to do a decent job.

Soccer is a great sport to learn sports photography as there is continuous action that you can follow and keep the ball in the frame.

[DHMN69]

Remember, if you're using Neat Image.. the FREE version will only allow you to save photos in low quality.. the paid version lets you save in high resolution

[fidgety]

Remember, if you're using Neat Image.. the FREE version will only allow you to save photos in low quality.. the paid version lets you save in high resolution

I am using the free version and was able to save at 300 dpi.

[Chris350]

I am using the free version and was able to save at 300 dpi.

Something to consider.. iis that DPI is dependent on image size measured length by width in pixels. More pixels is better. It doesn't matter how many Dots Per Inch (really Pixels Per Inch) you have if the image is only 800x500. For example 800x500 at 8"x10" is only about 100 ppi and will give you a crappy enlargement over about 4x6. My point is that DPI and PPI are misleading to many people. For that matter so is the term "quality" resolution is the better term. What really counts is the actual pixel count on the horizontal and vertical axis of the photo. Look at the original (unedited) image, and compare the pixel count to the edited version. If they're close to the same you're ok. Another quick check is to see what the original file size is verses the edited file size. Again if they are substantially different, you're losing resolution, ie "quality".

I'd give Neat Image a test drive but there is no stand alone fro Mac. Silly. One might look at noise ninja as well.

[fidgety]

Something to consider.. iis that DPI is dependent on image size measured length by width in pixels. More pixels is better. It doesn't matter how many Dots Per Inch (really Pixels Per Inch) you have if the image is only 800x500. For example 800x500 at 8"x10" is only about 100 ppi and will give you a crappy enlargement over about 4x6. My point is that DPI and PPI are misleading to many people. For that matter so is the term "quality" resolution is the better term. What really counts is the actual pixel count on the horizontal and vertical axis of the photo. Look at the original (unedited) image, and compare the pixel count to the edited version. If they're close to the same you're ok. Another quick check is to see what the original file size is verses the edited file size. Again if they are substantially different, you're losing resolution, ie "quality".

I'd give Neat Image a test drive but there is no stand alone fro Mac. Silly. One might look at noise ninja as well.

I don't know much about DPI or PPI but I do know that the filtered image looked fine, I sent it to my editor and they said it was fine for print in the newspaper so I'm going to go with it.