Shooting surfing with my new / used 7d mark ii ?

[Braineack]

Most 150-600s are light enough to hand hold, though a little stabilisation can make things a bit easyier

I would put a monopod on mine, mainly for when i WASNT shooting, to carry the weight. But when I was shooting I'd hand hold it for sure. Unless youre using a gimbal head, i dont see a tripod or a monopod helping, as your axis is now locked.

this was hand-held panning with the old Tamron -- which is very inferior to the current models.


GTLM Porsche North America No. 912 by Braineack, on Flickr

 

[TallDude]

I have a monopod, but I'm not use to it. When I shot basketball I'd handhold it in portrait orientation. Was able to get some really good shots in low light with my T2i, but... a lot of noise I've been using the monopod on the surfing shots, but it's not comfortable for me yet. Letting the camera just hang off my fingers in portrait was always comfortable for me. I pretty much just shoot one handed sometimes. Holding a bigger lens in a landscape position is really new to me. With the monopod, all the camera weight is gone. So panning feels twitchy (loose) and I find myself leaning forward and back to compensate for the vertical. Surfing is not a linear sport. It's like following a fly sometimes. I'll try some hots without the monopod and play with the AF settings.
Here's one of my old basketball photo's taken with the T2i and the Sigma 17 - 50 mm 2.8 This gym had just installed LED lights. So much nicer shooting in gyms these days.

 

[Braineack]

 

[stapo49]

I shot these hand held with the G9 which has around 6 stops of image stabilization. I found it easier to move around the beach and follow the surfers on the waves.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

With a lens as long as a 100 to 400 or a 150 to 600, image stabilization is really a godsend. Yes with a monopod it takes some practice, and you have to tip yourself back or forward sometimes. I do not like to use a monopod with any type of head. the one time I did try it I was using a Cullman ball head from the 1980s and I got a severe blood blister/finger pinch. I have successfully used a Nikon 400 mm f 3.5 which weighed about 7 lb and a Nikon 300 2.8 and a Nikon 200 f/2. All three of these lenses weigh in at around 7 lb, and I have quite successfully used them with a monopod with no head. just screw the monopod directly into the tripod collar of the lens.

Even with an aps-c camera like the 7D-II, I think a 150 to 600 would be a better option for surfing shots than a 100 to 400. It's just simply longer.

 

[TallDude]

I got a chance to practice a little more. Hand held, sun rising from the left side. I think I got the AF points worked out. Shooting at f8, 1/3200 and auto ISO.

 

[Braineack]

Too far away. Fill the frame with one surfer.

 

[stapo49]

I guess you may be limited by the reach of your lens but as @Braineack mentioned try and fill the frame as much as possible with one surfer. Here is one I took a while ago to illustrate that. From memory I cropped this one a bit as well.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[TallDude]

I'll try to get in closer, which means I have to try harder to track my subject..... I was only at 250 mm. I could have got closer. It was a higher tide which breaks closer to shore. That's when the foilers show up. If the tides to low, they risk slamming their $1,500. foils into the reef.

 

[stapo49]

Sorry I meant to mention on my previous post that the exception to this would be if you had a surfer/s on a 20 or 30 ft wave where you want to juxtapose the size of the wave to the size of the surfer/s.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[TallDude]

20 TO 30' ! I'd put put my camera away and paddle out! NOT! On waves that size I'm sure I'd need a lens with a lot more reach.

 

[stapo49]

20 TO 30' ! I'd put put my camera away and paddle out! NOT! On waves that size I'm sure I'd need a lens with a lot more reach.

No vacation to Nazare then?

 

[Braineack]

I'll try to get in closer, which means I have to try harder to track my subject.

There is no try, there is only do.

 

[RVT1K]

I'll try to get in closer, which means I have to try harder to track my subject.

There is no try, there is only do.

..or not do.

 

[RVT1K]

With a lens as long as a 100 to 400 or a 150 to 600, image stabilization is really a godsend. Yes with a monopod it takes some practice, and you have to tip yourself back or forward sometimes. I do not like to use a monopod with any type of head. the one time I did try it I was using a Cullman ball head from the 1980s and I got a severe blood blister/finger pinch. I have successfully used a Nikon 400 mm f 3.5 which weighed about 7 lb and a Nikon 300 2.8 and a Nikon 200 f/2. All three of these lenses weigh in at around 7 lb, and I have quite successfully used them with a monopod with no head. just screw the monopod directly into the tripod collar of the lens.

This is how I use my monopod, you certainly don't need a ball-head to pan with it.