[HotButterToppin]

Of course they're the practice drops. Being ridden on a rental bike, with a rental helmet and body armor. The shins are mine though. I only got into this FR/DH business a few months ago. But we all start somewhere.

Plus, just after that pic was taken I busted a SICK triple tailwhip corked-out and inverted. IT WAS SICK!! This is why I need a better photographer to follow me around.

Yeah the 1/500th flash sync is pretty important. Why? Because someone smarter than me said so. Heh heh. Ok I really don't know.

 

[BigMike]

type it in word, paste it into the quick reply box

Brian, that little site you made is awesome! maybe you should look into teaching this sh!t

 

[BigMike]

Of course they're the practice drops. Being ridden on a rental bike, with a rental helmet and body armor. The shins are mine though. I only got into this FR/DH business a few months ago. But we all start somewhere.

Plus, just after that pic was taken I busted a SICK triple tailwhip corked-out and inverted. IT WAS SICK!! This is why I need a better photographer to follow me around.

Yeah the 1/500th flash sync is pretty important. Why? Because someone smarter than me said so. Heh heh. Ok I really don't know.

Yeah, I know what you mean, I actually did a backflip truckdriver off one of those drops when I was up there.

Did it on my HT with hookworms, no pads or helmet, and a busted PCL.

To bad no one else saw it

 

[HotButterToppin]

Best advice any photographer has ever given me was to get closer. Get real close. Get as close as possible. I've noticed for most amateur riding pics where the scenery is, frankly, something far short of The Collective awe-inspiring, most pics look pretty bad because they're too far away and poorly composed. I can ramble all day about composition, flow, golden section, and all sorts of other boring sh*t that I'll spare you guys from.

The other tip was to use the flash, a lot more than you think. I think portrait mode is too often overlookd as well. But that stuff's for a different discussion.

Though there's truth that the camera doesn't make you a better photographer, there's also plenty of truth that if you simply can't capture a certain style of photograph with your equipment you're not going to shine a turd into something special. Especially in sports photography. A lot can be done with extra megapixels and cropping, but if your camera can't get a crisply focused subject because of a lack of AF speed, or lack of lense quality, or bad metering, etc etc, you can't dress it up that much in post production.

There's still a great great deal of skill involved in picking angles, setting up shots, lighting the shots, and everything these that goes into the composition and execution of a shot, but you can't wholesale discount the equipment from the equation. There's a line obviously. Which is why my feeling is that, Nikon, Canon, you can't really go wrong because the equipment won't likely be the bottleneck at that point. Your crappy ability as a photographer will be.

http://hbt.fotopic.net <- That's my crappy photo site. There's maybe 2 or 3 pics I like, the rest are mostly crap. A few more than that have some potential but were ruined by lack of camera. I'm no expert. Mock freely, I can take it!

 

[AR_]

Well i've finally stopped reading about the two cameras and brought one. The 20d. Should be here early next week

 

[HotButterToppin]

A fairly random thought here...

One thing that annoys me about the D70 is the lack of compatible portrait grip. The D100 had this as an accessory which would tag the pics for auto-rotation and also add another battery to your camera for extra long shoots. But the D100 isn't as nice as the D70 is most respects now. But a bummer regardless, since I love to shoot portrait shots.

Dunno about the 20D.

So BP, you are of the opinion that an external strobe/flash is pretty essential to this mountain biking photography?

 

[BigMike]

A fairly random thought here...

One thing that annoys me about the D70 is the lack of compatible portrait grip. The D100 had this as an accessory which would tag the pics for auto-rotation and also add another battery to your camera for extra long shoots. But the D100 isn't as nice as the D70 is most respects now. But a bummer regardless, since I love to shoot portrait shots.

Dunno about the 20D.

So BP, you are of the opinion that an external strobe/flash is pretty essential to this mountain biking photography?

The 20D has one, and yes, external flashes are important, I learned that at Snowshoe..........

 

[HotButterToppin]

Well, you were also shooting into the sun which is why the subjects in those pics were a bit underexposed. Ah the joys of metering systems trying to properly expose the sky but nothing else. Doh! Since I was further down the slope and not shooting into the sun mine had slightly better exposure I think.

Another question....

If I were looking at the 20D, which of those ugly white telephoto zooms is the best one for sports photography? Do they all focus the same speed? Would be a hard choice between the 100-400 or the 70-200 IS lenses if they do focus equally fast.

I would splurge on the telephoto since I really only have a need for a wide zoom and a tele zoom. With the 10-22 and 100-400 (or 70-200) there's really no need for a midrange. If I was hard up I'd pick up the 50 f1.4 though since I actually own one currently on my 1978 vintage Canon.

 

[_bp]

Equipment is chosen based on what you are trying to accomplish (duh). But it can get very expensive to buy all the equipment you might want. So you have to prioritize (duh).

A pop-up flash is only good for abut 10 feet or so, less if you are trying to shoot on a bright day. So if you need more light than that, or want the huge flexibility an external flash will offer, buy one. If you buy one make sure the flash head swivels and tilts, so you don't have to shoot everthing with direct strobe, which creates harsh lighting. This will allow you to bounce the light and create different lighting effects. This is a bit advanced, but a super cool tutorial: http://www.sportsshooter.com/special_feature/2003_luau_video/5_min_light/index.html

Here is the answer to your splurge question:

But first I must go on a little rant about wide angle lenses. First they are WAY overused, esecially in the *cough* extreme-sports industry. Second they are WAY overused, esecially in the *cough* extreme-sports industry. They can be used very effectively, but with most of the shots I see, by pros and amatuers, the subjects are to far away and blend with the background. I think strobes are often used as a crutch to overcome this. The 28-70mm, though difficult to use effectively, is my favorite lens.

So, I would stay as far away from the 10-22 lense as I could. I don't even know if I would go into the next to a store that actually carries one (I am exagerating some).

There is a misconception that the 1.5x magnification of focal length, which most DSLRs have, makes the focal length 1.5 times more, (a 20 mm becomes a 30mm). This is only half true. The lens is still a 20, but because the image sensor is smaller than 35mm film, it basically crops the 20mm lens leaving you with somethig similar to what you would see with a 30mm lens. But the angle of view is the same as the 20, so there is a difference. But because of this apparent zoom effect, camera manufacturers are now making super wide lenses. The drawback of all of this is not really easy to explain. Try these two links to help:
http://www.cybercollege.com/tvp011.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/dslr-mag.shtml

On the long end of the lens spectrum I would merge your two options. I assume the 70-200 and 100-400 both have the same auto focus motors, but the 70-200 will focus better in low light for sure (probably all the time) because the 2.8 aperture lets in 2-4 times as much light versus the f/4-5.6 1--400 lens. The smaller aperture is a huge plus. You can focus and compose better, but you can shoot at lower isos and/or higher shutter speeds and also create a shallower depth of field (clean you backgronds). Notice that the f/2.8 version of this lense is $1000 more than f/4 version. So the 100-400 lense will be a pretty big compromise in these regards over the 70-200. But you double the focal length with the other lense. What would I do. I would buy the non "IS" version of the 70-200, which is the same except for the image stabilization, and the $300 2x teleconverter. You will lose 2 stops of light with the extender, and lose some of the autofocus speed. But you basically have both lenses for the price of one. You actually stiff come out ahead is you bought the "IS" lense. I might even buy the 1.4x exender with the left over money.

FYI: The lense setup my paper is about to buy is a 16-35mm L, a 50 f1.4, the 70-200mm IS, and for the photographers to share two 14 f/2.8s, two 300mm f/2.8s and two 1.4x teleconvertors.


You know I always plan on keeping these responses short.

 

[BigMike]

I want that 70-200 2.8 soooooo bad!

So, Brian, how good is your company's insurance policy? If you were to have a lens or two stolen from you, would they cover it? neaky:

 

[_bp]

I've been providing my own equipment the whole time. This will be the first time they have ever bought equipment. My company sucks.

Maybe I could sell you my 70-200. Hah! That thing is so beat. I can't believe it still works.

 

[BigMike]

Woah! I was just looking at the Canon site, and it says the 70-200 has a constant maximum aperature is 2.8?!? so at 200, you can have an aperature of 2.8?! I NEED this lens to shoot in the theatre!

 

[BigMike]

I've been providing my own equipment the whole time. This will be the first time they have ever bought equipment. My company sucks.

Maybe I could sell you my 70-200. Hah! That thing is so beat. I can't believe it still works.

If you are serious, I am serious..........

If it still works, there is hope. I'm sure it wouldnt be to hard to get cleaned up and working like a champ

 

[_bp]

I don't know if I would be serious or not about selling my stuff. I know a lot of shooters that don't even have equipment because the company provides it. That scares me.

But if you are serious about buying some equipment used is a good option. Check sportsshooter.com's classified. The stuff there, if any, will probably be pretty well used, but may be cheaper. You could also consider an aftermarket brand like sigma or tamron. The lenses won't be as nice, but will be a lot cheaper.

 

[HotButterToppin]

I understand the value of f2.8 glass, I just wonder if it's worth it for an amateur. My understanding of IS is that it saves you a stop or two when trying to freeze motion when shooting handheld, which is always a plus from a practical standpoint. Hence why I was thinking the f4 100-400 would shoot better than the aperture specs would suggest.

The non-IS 70-200 is $600 cheaper. Looks like you need to get into telephoto primes before you can get f2.8 glass longer than 200mm. And the f2.8 300 is $4000. Bit of a drag.

Think if I were looking at the 20D I would go with the kit that includes body and 17-85 f4-5.6 ($2000), 70-200 f2.8 ($1200), and the 28mm f1.8 ($400) because for years I shot with a 50mm f1.4 and thought it was a great lense for many ocassions. Oh and the Speedlite 580EX for ($400) would probably be in there too. And a decent tripod.

And then I would be broke as hell and not have enough to actually buy a big bike. Damn.

 

[_bp]

I think your 20d kit sounds pretty good. I don't think the typical amateur, unless you are some rich bastard from Fairfax County, needs a full set of 2.8 lenses. And if you had to buy one, the 70-200 is usually the first people buy.

I don't know if I understand your logic on the 100-400. But here is something to ponder. Lenses are usually sharpest at the aperture two or three stops down from wide open. So with a 2.8 you are getting max sharpness at about f/5.6 or 8. With a 5.6 you need to go to f/11 or 16. If you look at landscape photographers, who want to get as much depth of field as possible, they will look for lenses with narrower apertures.

 

[_bp]

Oh, sorry if I am telling you stuff you already know. That can be hard to judge sometimes.

 

[_bp]

Here's one. I've heard mixed stuff about it, but still pretty cool.

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp?id=3274&navigator=3

 

[HotButterToppin]

Sorry. Just realized I meant shutter speed and not aperture. So revised that should read....

The 100-400 IS would get you a couple steps slower shutter speed without camera shake and blur. Because you can slow the shutter speed and still get some decent frozen action handheld, you can run a larger aperture by a stop or two to get enough light.

Now I forgot where I heard that, or read it, but it seemed reasonable. I'm probably just not articulating it correctly though. Hehe.

I'm pretty familiar with how depth of field, aperture, depth of focus, and motion blur tie together. So yeah, a littlte bit of a rehash of stuff I already know but that's no problem at all as I always pick up something new. It's good to get input from someone who actually knows wtf they're doing.

One thing I happen to really like with my Canon GL1 camcorder is the IS, which works extremely well at longer zooms. The camera has a 20x (400mm-ish?) lense before it even gets into digital zooming, and it's all but worthless when zoomed if you turn off the IS. So Canon definitely gets good points for their ability to build IS (assuming it's equally good on the slr lenses).

For anyone still following this thread re: 20D vs D70, I've been doing some looking and Nikon is a bit cheaper by comparison. The body is a couple hundred cheaper. The equivalent 70-200 f2.8 lense is a couple hundred cheaper for the IS model, and generally the Canon lenses are a couple hundred bucks more all around. With fewer offerings in high speed long lenses obviously.

 

[HotButterToppin]

Oh and I'm currently holding a 1978 vintage Canon TX w/50mm f1.4. The camera lent to me by my father and that taught me the basics of how to work a camera in full manual mode, shutter, aperture, focus, and iso. Good stuff.

Ya know, the real problem in all of this is that camera feel like such cheap pieces of crap nowadays. No metal until you get to the top end. Light as plasticy. No heft of quality. Canon lenses are all plastic even for those $4000 telephotos. That really depresses me when I'm spending so much. Fact of life though I guess.

 

[HotButterToppin]

And a decent focusing screen!!

I dunno what all this little [ ] nonsense is all about on new cameras. You can't focus that way. I need a nice zigzag pattern in the middle center. I think some of them are replaceable, but again, only on pricey camera bodies.

 

[BigMike]

So, for me, an amateur photographer, am I really going to notice a difference between the Canon Lens and the Sigma lens? (besides the factor?)


The way I figure, unless I am going to be using a bajillion megapixle camera and cropping to a 1/90000000 of an inch, It wont make a huuuge difference, especially for $600 instead of $1800

 

[punkassean]

Sadly, I have vowed never to do business with Canon after several firsthand experiences with the quality of their videocameras, and not cheap videocameras at that. Their horrible service, inside and outside of warranty was the clincher though. Canon won't get a single additional dollar from me.

Ok, except the wide angle lense I'm buying for the videocamera. But after that, NOT A PENNY! Heh.

I beat the crap out of my GL-1 for about 5 years now and it's working tits. It did crap on me once right after the manufacturer warranty ended but everybody knows to get an extended warranty on camcorders, there are just too many moving parts NOT to fail at some point. Whether it's a Canon, Sony, Panasonic or whatever....

Canon rules!

 

[BigMike]

Wow, I just found an interesting review on the sigma 70-200 f/2.8

http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/lenses/35mm-zoom/sigma/PRD_83598_3128crx.aspx#reviews

 

[AR_]

So, for me, an amateur photographer, am I really going to notice a difference between the Canon Lens and the Sigma lens? (besides the factor?)


The way I figure, unless I am going to be using a bajillion megapixle camera and cropping to a 1/90000000 of an inch, It wont make a huuuge difference, especially for $600 instead of $1800

Yeah i'm thinking a similar thing. As much as i'de love the Canon lense, i probabaly coudln't notice much differance between that and the Sigma?

Somewhere in all of this camera madness i may actually get round to buying another bike! Hurrah for insurance money!

 

[_bp]

The 100-400 IS would get you a couple steps slower shutter speed without camera shake and blur. Because you can slow the shutter speed and still get some decent frozen action handheld, you can run a larger aperture by a stop or two to get enough light.

The IS will help eliminate some camera shake, but will not affect the ability to stop a moving subject.

 

[AR_]

Really bringing back a thread from the dead here.. but i got my 20D a week or so ago.. here are some results for ya!

http://adrianrogers.deviantart.com

 

[mobius]

BP i'm trying to get back into photo after my N80 nikon was jacked with about 1500 of lenses last summer in vancouer.

Simple question

D70 or Rebel XT? I've always been a nikon user but i think this might be the time to switch.

 

[BigMike]

BP i'm trying to get back into photo after my N80 nikon was jacked with about 1500 of lenses last summer in vancouer.

Simple question

D70 or Rebel XT? I've always been a nikon user but i think this might be the time to switch.

I wouldn't go for the rebel. Save up for a 10D or 20D. As far as my experiance with them goes, the rebel just doesn't have the features and speed you are going to want.

my 2c

 

[AR_]

Plus, if you have even remotely large hands, you'll need a battery grip on the Rebel XT for it to be comftable.

The size is handy if you need something compact, but my hands (which are rather large) just don't fit the camera.

 

[VDfree]

I know most of you are probably using photoshop, like me. I have been thinking about picking up the new "Aperture" software for MAC. Has anyone used it or have any feedback? It supposed to be incredible, especially for shooting in RAW.

 

[_bp]

I know most of you are probably using photoshop, like me. I have been thinking about picking up the new "Aperture" software for MAC. Has anyone used it or have any feedback? It supposed to be incredible, especially for shooting in RAW.

I here it is pretty dope. Expensive, but dope. I imagine you need a pretty bad computer to get the full effect.

 

[HotButterToppin]

Five hundred smacks for catalogging software means it better be the best damn workflow software ever made (in my book). It better integrate with databases (SQL, Oracle, MySQL, etc) and it better be everything the camera company software is and way more. Then again, if it's anything like Apple's video prost production software (the ones that aren't Final Cut Pro) then it's probably really good because they bought it from someone else.

In other news... I was about 15 minutes away from pulling the trigger on a 20D w/17-85 IS USM but just in the nick of time Nikon looks like they'll be releasing the D200 in time for Christmas. The 20D had me convinced when I read about the autofocus, vertical grip the D70 lacks, heavier metal body, and 5fps for 23 shots. I had convinced myself I could live without 1/500th flash sync, and had checked the bank account to see if I could swing $2000.

But that crisis of conscience was averted when I read over on Kenrockwell.com that Nikon UK leaked some info. The D100 was the camera I was planning to get years ago when I was broke and dreaming, and it's not a Canon so I can purchase without going back on my vow to never buy Canon again.

 

[mobius]

I here it is pretty dope. Expensive, but dope. I imagine you need a pretty bad computer to get the full effect.

Minimum System Requirements
One of the following Macintosh computers:
Power Mac G5 with a 1.8 gigahertz (GHz) or faster PowerPC G5 processor
17- or 20-inch iMac G5 with a 1.8 GHz or faster PowerPC G5 processor
15- or 17-inch PowerBook G4 with a 1.25 GHz or faster PowerPC G4 processor
1GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon x600 Pro or x600 XT
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon X850 XT
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
ATI Radeon 9700 Pro
ATI Radeon 9600, 9600 XT, 9600 Pro, or 9650
ATI Mobility Radeon 9700 or 9600
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation

Recommended System
Dual 2GHz Power Mac G5 or faster
2GB of RAM
One of the following graphics cards:
ATI Radeon X800 XT Mac Edition
ATI Radeon 9800 XT or 9800 Pro
NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL or 6800 GT DDL
NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE or 6600
NVIDIA GeForce 7800 GT
NVIDIA Quadro FX 4500
5GB of disk space for application, templates, and tutorial
DVD drive for installation

 

[AR_]

Someone mentioned Canons 'L' range earlier.. Quick Q..

Canon 70-200 f4 L OR Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX DG?

I'm thinking the extra stop would be more usefull than the faster AF, but anyone care to shed some more light?

 

[HotButterToppin]

I know this isn't the best place to ask this...but on the off chance anyone has played with them both, has anyone tried the Canon and Nikon f2.8 70-200mm lenses side by side for AF speed comparisons?

 

[_bp]

Had a pretty good day at the office Friday.

 

[mobius]

So uhh bp i hate you can i borrow something?

 

[HotButterToppin]

Couldn't have been that good....you underexposed the picture! I can't even see cameras and my gamma is at 1.85. Take that, Canon user! Nyuck nyuck


I just preordered a D200 w/18-70 f3.5-5, battery grip and 2 1GB cards. Going to hold off on any other lenses until I figure out what these newfangled zoom lenses are all about. I say newfangled of course because my only real SLR experience is with very nice f1.4 manual focus Canon primes from the 70's. So I'm really quite tempted to just get a couple of those, say the hell with wide or mid zooms, and save up for a big 2.8 tele. But we'll see. Seems everyone loves zooms. Seems to me that 80% of my time is either spent full wide or full long though.