A few Pics from Dragons VS Swing Baseball Game

[MonkeyWrench]

This was a night game and my 75-300mm lens does not do well in low light so when I was forced to go to 1600 ISO they came out a little grainy. If you want you can check out the rest of the pics at:

http://picasaweb.google.com/RRM.Phot...ingApril182007

Would of loved to included the ball with the first pic.

[JSPhoto]

lol, nice mascot! For noice you can use NeatImage or one of the other good noise removal tools. NI can be used as a plugin with PS or Elements. That top shot would have been really fantastic if the ball was in there somewhere, but it is still very good. The timing will come as you learn your gears limitations and so on. You did get very good results though for that lens at night, I'm surprised actually. You must have pretty good lighting at that field.

JS

[Old Timer]

Nice job Russ. I'm impressed for your first time shooting there and with a relatively slow tele lens you got some very nice pictures. Like john said if you had the ball in that first one you would have had a real jewel of a photo. Nice work and keep posting them up, I love what your doing.

[MonkeyWrench]

lol, nice mascot! For noice you can use NeatImage or one of the other good noise removal tools. NI can be used as a plugin with PS or Elements. That top shot would have been really fantastic if the ball was in there somewhere, but it is still very good. The timing will come as you learn your gears limitations and so on. You did get very good results though for that lens at night, I'm surprised actually. You must have pretty good lighting at that field.

JS

The Dragons Staff always put on a good show. This is one of the most fan friendly stadiums I have ever been to. Not only do they not have a lens limitation but you could video tape the game if you wanted. The park is well lit and I would of been fine if I had a better lens. I am even more of a novice when it comes to PS, but I will download your suggestion and see how it goes. Note: I did not buy the 75-300mm lens to take picture of sports. It just happens to be the only telephoto lens I own. Am going to start saving for the Canon 70-200mm USM IS f2.8 because I am finding photographing sports to be challenging and fun. Maybe it will be a little cheaper by the time I can afford it. Thanks for the suggestions and kind words.

[MonkeyWrench]

Nice job Russ. I'm impressed for your first time shooting there and with a relatively slow tele lens you got some very nice pictures. Like john said if you had the ball in that first one you would have had a real jewel of a photo. Nice work and keep posting them up, I love what your doing.

Thanks Larry,

I was farily happy with what I got picture wise. I will always look at that one picture and wish there was a ball there. The best thing about a baseball game is regardless of what happens picture wise you still got to go to a game.

[JSPhoto]

Russ,
You won't find the 70-200 getting too cheap, the reason is it is the sports photogs best friend and litterally evey pro that shoots Canon gear needs to have one so the price stays high. Not only that but many amatuers also use it because they see the pros using it. It's supply and demand, and it may be the most wanted lens ever made. Even used it doesn't go too cheap. I know of one of these lenses that had dents and dings all over and virtually no paint left on it and it still worked for a couple years. They finally retired it, now it's a door stop. It was one of the first 70-200 f2.8's made.
You can get the older version which has single mode srabilizer good for most sports. Since I shoot a lot of racing I have the version 2 IS that works great for high speed panning, although honestly I can pan high speed without it, but hey I'm getting oloder and can use all the help I can get :thumbsup:

JS

[swmdrayfan]

Great job.....I know what you're going thru with the 70-300.....mine usually went in the bag last year cause I didn't want to deal with the high ISO's. In that 3rd picture though, it looked like your point of focus was off, but that's a minor detail. Again......great job.

[MonkeyWrench]

Russ,
You won't find the 70-200 getting too cheap, the reason is it is the sports photogs best friend and litterally evey pro that shoots Canon gear needs to have one so the price stays high. Not only that but many amatuers also use it because they see the pros using it. It's supply and demand, and it may be the most wanted lens ever made. Even used it doesn't go too cheap. I know of one of these lenses that had dents and dings all over and virtually no paint left on it and it still worked for a couple years. They finally retired it, now it's a door stop. It was one of the first 70-200 f2.8's made.
You can get the older version which has single mode srabilizer good for most sports. Since I shoot a lot of racing I have the version 2 IS that works great for high speed panning, although honestly I can pan high speed without it, but hey I'm getting oloder and can use all the help I can get :thumbsup:

JS

I've been doing research and it seems to be the hands down solution for what I want. The $1600+ price tag is a bit hard to swallow. But I too need the IS to help with my stabilitiy (or lack of). Its not something I am able to go runout and buy but will be on my wish list.

[MonkeyWrench]

Great job.....I know what you're going thru with the 70-300.....mine usually went in the bag last year cause I didn't want to deal with the high ISO's. In that 3rd picture though, it looked like your point of focus was off, but that's a minor detail. Again......great job.

Thanks,

You'r right about the third pic. I shot a lot of these trying to capture the ball on the bat. I was focusing my central focus point on the batter and locking down with half pressing the shutter and then re-composing the shot. My finger probably slipped and the camera refocused off the batter. Just my luck it was my best ball and bat shot.