|
|
Post by hmca on Oct 17, 2018 23:42:33 GMT
My granddaughter competes in gymnastics. It has become apparent to me that the 70-200 2.8 lens is too heavy for me to consider buying. Thinking ahead to this year's competitions I wondered if I might use either my Canon 50 or 17-55 lens at 2.8 and then use Topaz megapixel
to increase image size to make prints to include in an 8.5x11 photo book. Does this seem feasible ? For many of the pictures from last year the maximium distance was 105mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 18, 2018 1:47:19 GMT
Hi hmca,
I assume you want to enlarge after you have cropped to digitally "zoom in". I am also assuming the event will be indoors.
In theory what you propose should be ok depending on the quality of the images you take at the event. The critical thing imo will be to use the fastest shutter speed you can get under the lighting conditions without affecting image quality too much. You will need to freeze the action as much as possible, especially since you will be enlarging the images. Any motion blur, camera shake or residual noise will be magnified in the enlargement and especially on largish prints.
I would suggest the following:
1. Use your best quality lens wide open (largest aperture, smallest f number)
2. Then set the lowest ISO you can get away with to maintain the shutter speed you will need to freeze the action. Definitely take test shots before your granddaughter's performance.
3. Definitely shoot raw format. This will give you the most flexibility in post processing to adjust exposure, remove noise etc.
hth 
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Oct 18, 2018 2:42:39 GMT
Thanks for your reply, Bailey.
In the past I have used a 70-350 (not a good quality lens) and my 24-105 (good lens). With these lenses the widest apertures I could work with were f 4 / f 5.6.
The lighting is usually terrible and high to very high ISO's are a must to get a good shutter speed. Noise is always an issue but with considerable pp I have been able to get decent pictures. I always shoot RAW.
My thought with using the 50 or 17-55 was that maybe I could use f 2 which would allow me to use a lower ISO. I wasn't sure if it would be better to enlarge the image first and then crop in, or crop and then enlarge.
So then it seems to come down to is it better to have the reach to get closer or the larger aperture to reduce ISO?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 18, 2018 3:00:56 GMT
no problem hmca.
If it was me, I would get as close to the action as allowed and then use the fastest shutter speed I can get without introducing noise to the point where I couldn't remove it satisfactorily.
If that means sacrificing reach for a fast shutter speed, I would choose sacrificing reach every time. For me, there is no point having a close up shot whose image quality is unacceptable and unrecoverable due to motion blur, camera shake or noise.
To cover your bases, take shots at different focal lengths (but always wide open) and see how you go. You might get lucky and the lighting might be good enough for longer focal lengths.
If you can, arrive at the event a little earlier, take test shots at various focal lengths and shutter speeds and evaluate them in camera (zoom in to 100% on the camera's screen) to see which camera settings work best.
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Oct 18, 2018 4:10:33 GMT
I will probably need to do a lot of experimenting. It is hard to plan for these meets as you never know what the conditions will be..........
Your discussion with Peter and his hummingbird made me think of using the 50.......plus it would be so much easier to carry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bailey on Oct 18, 2018 4:30:59 GMT
No problem hmca . If you can't take the 17-55mm and the 50mm, then I would choose the 50mm prime. A prime lens will normally produce slightly sharper images because of the lower amount of glass in them. For your type of event I doubt you would need the wide 17mm focal length.
You mentioned you would like to make 8.5" x 11" prints from an image enlarged by Topaz's AI Gigapixel. As part of your planning if you have time, perhaps try the following:
1. For an 8.5" x 11" print at 300ppi you will need an image 2550px x 3300px (I hope my maths is correct  ).
2. Topaz claim AI Gigapixel can enlarge images up to 6x the original size, so as long as your crop is at least 425px x 550px then you should be ok.
3. To test step 2, choose a good quality large image (preferably from similar previous events) and do a 100% crop of 425px x 550px and then enlarge it to 2550px x 3300px using AI Gigapixel and evaluate the quality. If the quality of the enlargement is good then you should be ok at your upcoming event.
hth
|
|
|
|
Post by BuckSkin on Oct 18, 2018 4:52:22 GMT
It has become apparent to me that the 70-200 2.8 lens is too heavy for me to consider buying. I don't consider myself yet wise enough to offer advice on what you are doing; however, your statement about a lens possibly being too heavy brought to mind a young lady I met at, of all places, a recent mule/wagon trail-ride. This girl had some serious photography equipment and lenses that looked like those one sees on the National Geographic channel. One bit of equipment that stuck in my mind was a sort of support harness that braced the weight of the lens against her belt-line; there was a rigid somewhat 90* curved piece that the bottom end rested on a wide pad that sat against her waist, with the upper end attached to the lens. Straps from the shoulder harness supported the rear end of the camera. In all of the photography books, catalogs, and internet browsing I have done I have never before seen such a device; but something like it might be just the ticket for fast action shooting with heavy equipment. I wish I had of taken some pictures of her using it. On EDIT: >>> The outfit she had was remotely similar to these two, except that her rig seemed to provide more freedom of camera movement and had straps attached where a normal neck strap would be. www.amazon.com/dp/B00NG52XMO/ref=psdc_196573011_t3_B00MF6MJXIwww.amazon.com/Shoulder-Support-Stabilizer-Camcorder-Camera/dp/B00MF6MJXI/ref=sr_1_6?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1539838631&sr=1-6&keywords=camera+support+harness&dpID=51nwEkZYwsL&preST=_SY300_QL70_&dpSrc=srchI used to see quite a few people using rifle-stocks with their camera mounted on them; such a set-up was very stable for action shooting. |
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Oct 18, 2018 12:01:20 GMT
Buckskin, if I wasn't having shoulder issues that would be something to consider. I should have mentioned that in my OP. I appreciate the time you took researching it.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 18, 2018 15:14:41 GMT
I have a similar problem shooting for the local theatre where the lighting is never great and, with my Fuji and Nikon, I prefer to go the high ISO, medium aperture route to get depth of field and typically I might be using 200mm f5.6 1/100sec ISO 3200 - for faster action I'll push the ISO to 6400 and especially with my newer Fuji noise is quite manageable as I'm sure it would be with your Canon. I'm guessing that gymnastics might need faster shutter speeds? In my case I arrived at this approach after experimenting with other lenses (including my 50mm prime) and found it works best for me in that particular situation. That said I'm always tempted by seeing what the latest cameras will do in terms of ISO and there are some pretty impressive ones out there now.
Tony
|
|
pontiac1940
CE Members
Posts: 6,362
Open to constructive criticism of photos: Yes
|
Post by pontiac1940 on Oct 18, 2018 15:15:51 GMT
hmca "The lighting is usually terrible" ... isn't that just so?! Terrible light quality and levels are low in gymnasia. Hockey arenas are the same, but at least have a reflective "floor." Now what I am going to say falls into the general category of other people's money! Bear with me. (It will also sound a titch arrogant of me. It's just FYI.  ) I am blown away by the image quality from my full frame Sony ... and Canon has just released their first FF mirrorless as did Nikon. (Canon FF ML lens selection seems to be limited at the moment.) With the full-frame sensor, high ISO images are generally excellent and generally free of noise up 'til ridiculously high ISOs. (Noise does show up in dark images, like edges of northern lights scenes.) Point being, if you are restricted in lens size and need to enlarge images for your album prints, then a full-frame sensor camera might be something to consider as the "as shot" images will be much cleaner than from an APS-C sensor. Like I said, "other people's money."  KA-CHING! Yes, this image is hardy fast action (belts are not known for their speed and agility), but shows how good things can be. Shot as jpeg in our walk-in closet. (Took some high-ISO test shots when I first got the Sony A7III.) Click the imgbb image to see a bit larger version. BTW, there was variation in light left to right so levels were tweaked in ACR but there's been no noise reduction here.) Clive PS: The mirrorless cameras weight less than the DSLRs.  |
|
|
|
Post by srmoment on Oct 18, 2018 16:05:00 GMT
Helen, I was wondering if a camera phone might do the trick as they seem to make amazing captures these days. I think the new Topaz AI resize is supposed to be able to take small photos and enlarge them without loss of clarity....not sure if this is the case or not.
Perhaps you could try both (lens and a camera phone).
|
|
|
|
Post by PeteB on Oct 18, 2018 17:14:23 GMT
Helen
Another possibility is rental. If you have a local camera store that rents lenses, ask them for suggestions. They may have something that will work for you. I have rented in the past and I was always satisfied.
|
|
|
|
Post by hmca on Oct 19, 2018 0:07:18 GMT
tonyw.......I really appreciate your reply as after I posted I thought good photographers might be shaking their heads at me. I find it especially reassuring to see that you have struggled with similar issues. In some cases I have had to go as high as 16000. While the pictures aren't great I may still end up using them. For example my granddaughter loved this one as the man watching her was Aly Raisman's coach.  pontiac1940........ thanks for your input. I have heard great things about your Sony but I don't think I am up for that kind of an investment at this point. srmoment........funny you should mention using a phone. Last year I met a man in Florida who had the lens I mentioned in the OP. He let me try holding his camera but actually made the suggestion of using my phone as well. It is certainly worth a try. PeteB......I had planned on renting last year and then never did. Right now I am having shoulder issues which make the weight a major consideration. If I finally get myself to a better place I should definitely try renting. You have all given me a lot to think about. I will need to do some experimenting and after her season begins in December share what works or doesn't for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyw on Oct 29, 2018 22:23:25 GMT
Helen: I just saw another suggestion for low light sports photography from Dan Bailey - a Fuji expert whose Blog I follow. Turn the ISO way up and shoot Black and White. I haven't tried it but according to Dan high ISO noise is less noticeable in B&W than in colour and some conversions make it less obvious than others. Whether there's a difference between in camera conversion and post camera conversion I don't know but it sounds like something worth experimenting with.
Tony
|
|
).
)
KA-CHING! 
