Looking to upgrade but clueless - need to get further in-field for sports shooting

[Tony S]

From your example pictures the reach is not an issue, even in one shot you are in too tight which is usually the opposite problem folks have. Work on getting what you have to focus better and work the exposures. Can't read the exif on these files you showed, but I would set the camera to the center focus point only, keep that on your action, then you can crop later for the exact composition you want. I like to shoot a little loose like that anyways so you can make adjustments later. BTW, the majority of my soccer shooting is done with two lenses, a 70-200 and 400 with the 400 doing the main load of work.

 

[table1349]

Most of those shots would have been better served if they had been shot in portrait orientation instead of landscape.

 

[cupcake1142]

Thanks for all the replies and feedback. Sounds like I was wrong in thinking reach is my issue. I see all the pro photogs at the games with their long, white lenses and I thought that was what I needed too. And I look at photos like this one: http://25.media.tumblr.com/bb419c2f16ef43e684c1d7dd79e4df65/tumblr_muc2ca4hZO1s93atho1_1280.jpg where I am totally maxed out and I think how much better it might look if I can get closer. But I guess I just crop those photos and stop being lazy, right? Haha.

So it seems the general consensus is I just need a lens that will just take better photos? The back focusing, now that I think about it, is the #1 picture ruiner. I'll capture some great moments -- perfect timing, framed perfectly, positioned in the right spot, and it will just turn out blurry because it's sudden action -- like a shot and save -- and my camera doesn't focus correctly. I am going to look at the suggestions for faster lenses. Any other tips on dealing with that or lenses you'd recommend would be great. (Maybe that's a new thread?) Thanks for those who did link to suggestions. I think I'd probably want a lens that can shoot about as far as I can now, so, if I want a better quality version of this, does this make my dream of a better lens more affordable now overall?

From your example pictures the reach is not an issue, even in one shot you are in too tight which is usually the opposite problem folks have. Work on getting what you have to focus better and work the exposures. Can't read the exif on these files you showed, but I would set the camera to the center focus point only, keep that on your action, then you can crop later for the exact composition you want. I like to shoot a little loose like that anyways so you can make adjustments later. BTW, the majority of my soccer shooting is done with two lenses, a 70-200 and 400 with the 400 doing the main load of work.

I actually did manual selection with auto focus and set it to dead center and found it even more difficult to avoid back focusing. When you're shooting soccer games, a lot of times the action is on one side of the frame because you want to show the action in front of them. Or at least I do... I guess maybe I am a crap sports photog, in a way, because I want my photos to have some artistic value and be pretty. I look at some of the professional photos and they are all dead center, all in portrait orientation and they just look very boring to me. Good for a newspaper article, I guess, but I'm trying make my pictures capture the moment a bit more than just capture a player. My best photos, sadly, are when play stops and my little camera is able to focus well. This is one of my faves I took from the championship game recently, even though it bugs me that I didn't center the shot right: http://24.media.tumblr.com/15b575ac1263bdea322d621fc8c66128/tumblr_muc1a9S2FE1s93atho1_1280.jpg There were like 20 other photogs at this game, I haven't seen this pic anywhere else. Anyway, even when I tried to keep the action in the center of my frame, it was still hard. I have gotten better at following objects when they are running, but it's still hard to keep it dead center, so I went back to automatic selection. (One of the pro photogs recommended I go with manual selection. Either he is more skilled or is camera just focuses differently than mine!)

Most of those shots would have been better served if they had been shot in portrait orientation instead of landscape.

Per above, I have to admit I really don't like the way portrait shots look. I realize that's what the pro photogs do, and I see them with their special battery pack grip thingys so they can hold the camera in portrait mode, but I just don't like the way it isolates what is happening on the field. Is there some specific reason portrait is preferred over landscape? The main benefit seems to be that you can get someone's feet as well as their faces. I admit, sometimes I do get too close to what's happening in it's right near the endline.

Your shots are better than what I expected, by far. On three of the frames, the camera has "back-focused"...meaning, focused way behind the subjects...the crowd, being made up of many colored shirts, and lots of detail, is a strong, contrasty subject to a camera-brain. STRONG, large patterns,like chain link fencing, or hundreds of stadium seats, make a very strong "pattern", with tons of "detail", and detail is what autofocusing sensors tend to lock onto. Especially if the camera is allowed to select the autofocusing point or points in use.

If you owned a faster lens, one with a wider aperture, your lower-light shots would be better exposed. I think you show real potential, but you are working with beginner-level equipment. I can see potential and ability is already in you. If you were to be handed a pro-level Nikon or Canon, and a high-grade lens, your photos would improve immensely. After a month of using a higher-end LENS, just a higher-end LENS on your current camera, your issues would be fewer, and your images better, technically, and probably artistically as well.

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I've never taken a photography class or ever owned a good camera, but I've always been into documenting things through pictures, capturing moments and all that. I think my photos have gotten a lot better over the past few months and when I compare my stuff to the professional photogs at the games I go to, it really feels like it's my equipment messing me up, not my vision. Their pictures are mostly better, obviously, but sometimes I catch little moments that they don't and it feels pretty good. I know I have more to learn and using a crappy camera has probably forced me to understand what I am doing a bit more with shutter speeds, ISOs, shooting modes, framing my subjects, etc. to get the most out of it.

Thank you for explaining the backfocusing and the issues you are spotting in my photos. It's really helpful and has me reconsidering what I actually need, per what I said at the top of my post. Thanks for giving them a look and providing some feedback. Means a lot.

 

[table1349]

Most of those shots would have been better served if they had been shot in portrait orientation instead of landscape.

Per above, I have to admit I really don't like the way portrait shots look. I realize that's what the pro photogs do, and I see them with their special battery pack grip thingys so they can hold the camera in portrait mode, but I just don't like the way it isolates what is happening on the field. Is there some specific reason portrait is preferred over landscape? The main benefit seems to be that you can get someone's feet as well as their faces. I admit, sometimes I do get too close to what's happening in it's right near the endline.

Sports photography is all about isolating the action. That is done two ways. One is by shooting in an orientation that captures the action and eliminates the boring fluff that detracts from the photo. The second way is with fast glass shooting with only enough DOF to capture the player(s) actually involved in the action while having all others and the crowd out of focus. For me with field sports that is usally around f2.8. Those are the things that draw your eye to the point of the photo being the action. They are also what seperates a sports photograph from a snapshot.

No one cares about a big open field, players standing there watching the action or the crowd in the background. They all detract from the intent of the photo.

 

[astroNikon]

Sports photography is all about isolating the action. That is done two ways. One is by shooting in an orientation that captures the action and eliminates the boring fluff that detracts from the photo. The second way is with fast glass shooting with only enough DOF to capture the player(s) actually involved in the action while having all others and the crowd out of focus. For me with field sports that is usally around f2.8. Those are the things that draw your eye to the point of the photo being the action. They are also what seperates a sports photograph from a snapshot.

No one cares about a big open field, players standing there watching the action or the crowd in the background. They all detract from the intent of the photo.

That is what I'm noticing about my Soccer pictures. Alot of the background (walls, cars, people, etc) is very distracting.
I'm focusing with AF-C with 9 (out of 31) focus points slightly to the right, when the goal is to my left. That allows me to focus on the player with the ball moving towards the goal. But the background certainly is distracting and I'm getting pictures where the focus is not the player. Also I'm trying to keep the shutter speed high and the aperture just isn't allowing it such as this past weekend it got dark from late evening and a heavy rain/cloud cover.

I figured I needed a faster lens like a f/2.8 and it makes sense now with your statement. Another lens on the list

 

[Tony S]

Cupcake, if you hadn't had the focus point to the side on your favorite shot it would have been a real winner with the faces you can see in focus. Also be ready for those still shots without much movement so you can quickly swing your aperture over to get more in focus like multi players in a shot.

 

[lennon33x]

Found this article; it may be helpful for you in your shots

Canon DLC: Article: Back-Button Auto Focus Explained

 

[grafxman]

Ok, well fully prepared to have vegetables hurled in my direction - but.. I don't use a DSLR for sports shooting. I use a bridge camera. Yup.. total soccer mom camera. Panasonic FZ200 is my preferred weapon of choice for softball and football games. 600 mm zoom with F2.8 all the way out to 600 mm is just too hard to beat. Yes, I own a DSLR - and yes I do like the larger sensor camera for a lot of things, but for sports shooting it can't compare with my FZ200, not unless I go out and dump 5 or 6 grand on a lens that I'll need a forklift to carry around. So let the veggie hurling begin I guess, but when it comes to sports shooting I'll stick with my FZ200. Until I win the lottery. Then maybe.. lol

I saw a previous posting of yours about that camera so I did a little research. It's specs are truly amazing. I'm tempted to buy one to play around with. It might be handy to carry around on the seat of my car or motor home. I keep a Canon SX260 in my pocket but I don't like having to dig it out then hold it away from face to see the viewscreen. I am wondering about a couple of things though. Why isn't it more popular and why is it called a bridge camera?