# College football season starting



## floatingby (Sep 14, 2018)

Trying to hone my skills, since the team I follow play at night it is quite the challenge. A few of what I brought home, critique welcome.


----------



## Jeff15 (Sep 14, 2018)

Very good action shots....


----------



## ac12 (Sep 22, 2018)

Don't crop so tight.
You want to leave room on the print in front of the player, so he has "room" to run into.  It looks odd when he is running into the edge of the print/image.

Good shots.
You have better lighting than I have at my local high school.  I don't count on seeing the faces inside the helmets.
The more you shoot, the better you get.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 23, 2018)

Jeff15 said:


> Very good action shots....


Thanks.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 23, 2018)

ac12 said:


> Don't crop so tight.
> You want to leave room on the print in front of the player, so he has "room" to run into.  It looks odd when he is running into the edge of the print/image.
> 
> Good shots.
> ...


Thanks. It's unfortunate but with a 400mm I can crop tighter if need be, but I can't crop looser, what is there is all there is. I haven't found a way to win at that game, sometime a 400 is too short, sometime it's too long. Same with a 300, same with a 600.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 23, 2018)

Rent a 70-200 and try it for a game.
Yes it will be short for shooting across the field, but that is what you have a 2nd body with your 400 for.  The 400 is way too long when the play gets near you.

If only one body, the 70-200 is good enough for most shots, then crop as needed.  That is as long as you are able to move along the sideline.

I don't know about you, but I have trouble tracking the players if I zoom in tight.  
I need space around the players to track well and keep situational awareness.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 23, 2018)

ac12 said:


> Rent a 70-200 and try it for a game.


I had one, sold it after a few games, found it too short for most field sport on a FF camera, I like the 120-300mm way better. Maybe if I had two cameras I'd mount one along with the 400, but I'm not even sure, I'd try it first for sure.


ac12 said:


> I don't know about you, but I have trouble tracking the players if I zoom in tight.
> I need space around the players to track well and keep situational awareness.


That 400 sure is challenging, I'm getting better with it but it takes time, a lot of time, practicing now to shoot with both eyes open to see both the viewfinder and what's coming in/out. Not easy.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 23, 2018)

floatingby said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Rent a 70-200 and try it for a game.
> ...



Then I would use the 120-300, instead of the 400.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 23, 2018)

ac12 said:


> I don't know about you, but I have trouble tracking the players if I zoom in tight.
> I need space around the players to track well and keep situational awareness.





ac12 said:


> floatingby said:
> 
> 
> > ac12 said:
> ...


I use both, with the 400 I can go to a different viewpoint that I can't reach with the 300. For example, for a shot like this I could move far upfield and capture the player face, his facial expression, while with a shorter lens you're stuck straight on from the sideline and see the player entirely from the side. (this was shot using my 120-300 but on a crop factor camera,  my D850 is broken so I had to rent,so effective focal length was 450mm).
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




See my edit above though, need training to become proficient with that 400.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 24, 2018)

floatingby said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > Don't crop so tight.
> ...



How far back are you with the 400? You could shoot at least 1/2 the field with that from the end zone. When I've had a 300mm on a crop sensor, I've shot that far. Having a second body with a 70-200mm f/2.8, helps a lot when you have a 300 mm or longer lens.

I used a crop sensor and a 400 to shoot this shot. Yes, it was heavily cropped and during the day, but I was 75 yards down the field and acrossed the field from the play.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 24, 2018)

ronlane said:


> How far back are you with the 400?


I picture it as a zone in the shape of an arc centered on me, in the middle is where it's best and getting gradually worst as you move on either side until it's no more usable. So I try to position myself according to where I think the play is going to go to have it fall dead center in that arc; but of course, as much as I know football, if I could predict each and every play without fault I'd be an NFL coach and raking in the best pay in the league.
Day game can extend that zone outward since you can crop, especially with a body like the D850, to extend your reach without too much loss of quality. Night game, not so much.
The 400 is new to me, still on the learning curve so it's not intuitive to me; most time, being used to the 300 and having shot with it for so long,  I'm too close.
But I'm having a blast.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 29, 2018)

I shot a football game last night, and I wished I had a 24-120 instead of my 70-200 on my DX camera.
There was a pass catch and 2 TDs along the sideline near me, all too close for the 70mm end of my lens.
One pass catch just fit into the coverage of the 70mm end.

I guess you slot yourself into shooting long or short, and I end up on the medium to short end.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 29, 2018)

ac12 said:


> I shot a football game last night, and I wished I had a 24-120 instead of my 70-200 on my DX camera.
> There was a pass catch and 2 TDs along the sideline near me, all too close for the 70mm end of my lens.
> One pass catch just fit into the coverage of the 70mm end.
> 
> I guess you slot yourself into shooting long or short, and I end up on the medium to short end.


Even carrying 2 cameras isn't a perfect solution; I tried once last year, by the time I switch camera, frame and focus  properly, the play is loooong over and I didn't let even one shot fly, not worth the trouble to me. That's why big sports journal send more than 1 photographer to cover big events I suppose.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 29, 2018)

floatingby said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > I shot a football game last night, and I wished I had a 24-120 instead of my 70-200 on my DX camera.
> ...



Yup, on a pass or fast run, things can move too fast to switch cameras.
Unless you have a super zoom (like the DX 18-140 or FX 28-200 or 28-300), you need to work as a team; one with the shorter zoom, one with the longer zoom.  The problem with the super zoom, besides lower IQ, is that they are SLOW (f/5.6), so not a good choice for night games.

IMHO, the zoom ring on the 18-140 is too stiff.  The cam angle for a short throw zoom ring is too steep, resulting in more turning force being needed.  I would rather have a longer throw zoom ring to get less turning force needed.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 30, 2018)

floatingby said:


> That's why big sports journal send more than 1 photographer to cover big events I suppose.



But even sending 2, 3 or even 5 photogs, those photogs generally have a minimum of 2 cameras and in most cases 3. Typically with a 300/400, 70-200 and a 24-70.

Switching cameras is something that takes a lot of thought and practice. Honestly most of us start out with just the one camera and body and get so ingrained that for a while, even when carrying a second body and camera we forget to reach for it. I agree that having a 70-200 on a second DX body is still tight in the end-zone but can be dealt with by knowing the tendencies of the team you are shooting and placing yourself accordingly.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 30, 2018)

I gave it some thought.
As Ron said, I shoot with ONE camera.  I don't have sponsored funding for more.

Depending on where the play is, what kind of play (running vs pass) and where it is going, there can be enough time to switch cameras.
You also have to practice switching cameras.  I've gotten reasonably good at lifting the camera and getting off a fast shot.  So while I could use two cameras, I would not want the extra weight of the 2nd camera.  Getting old sucks. 
If I shot with two cameras, it would be a Micro 4/3 kit, where I could get the weight down to what I can handle.


----------



## ronlane (Sep 30, 2018)

@ac12, until about 2 weeks ago, I was in the same boat with only one camera. After getting a used 1D mk IV and using it as my main body with my 70-200mm, I can then carry a 7D mk II with a 24-70mm. I don't have the 300mm or 400mm yet.

I borrowed a 300mm f/2.8 for the college game I got last weekend and used the 300 and a 70-200 on the second body and that was a nice combination. I was able to switch to the 70-200mm when the teams would get inside the 20. I was lucky that I was in position that I did not have much come right in front of me where I was too close and needed a 24-70mm.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 30, 2018)

Not trying to argue or anything, just something I observed 2 weeks ago when I went to a CFL game(as a spectator). Guys there with 400mm or 600mm lens on monopod had no other cameras; they also didn't move much, almost looked like they had assigned position(no way for me to confirm this, of course, just what I observed). Guys carrying shorter focals, I'm guessing in the 24mm to 200mm range, carried 2 cameras, one guys even had 3, and they walked the field a lot. Don't have a clue as to who those guys were working for(League?Club?Paper?Mag?), but it made sense to me; trying to shoot with a camera in one hand while holding a 5Kg, 400mm lens at the end of a stick  in the other hand is a difficult proposition at the best of time.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 30, 2018)

This shot was with the 70-200 lens at 70mm on a DX/crop camera, so 105mm FF equiv.
I wished I had my 18-140 super-zoom on the camera for that shot, or one of the short FX/FF zooms like the 24-120.
You can always crop in, but you can't crop outward beyond the image border.
note:  numbers and faces obscured for student privacy.

@floatingby
Yes, I would think the guys with the LONG lenses were part of a team, with their job to shoot the far shots or TIGHT closeups.


----------



## floatingby (Sep 30, 2018)

ac12 said:


> View attachment 163838
> This shot was with the 70-200 lens at 70mm on a DX/crop camera, so 105mm FF equiv.
> I wished I had my 18-140 super-zoom on the camera for that shot, or one of the short FX/FF zooms like the 24-120.
> You can always crop in, but you can't crop outward beyond the image border.
> note:  numbers and faces obscured for student privacy.


Just an opinion, but I think you just missed proper framing on this shot so I wouldn't blame the lens focal length; feet don't need to be in the shot, I would think if it was framed mid shin, or even mid thigh, heck even from waist upward, but with the actual catch then it would have been a great shot.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 30, 2018)

floatingby said:


> ac12 said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 163838
> ...



Yes I did miss the framing, I wanted the catch itself.
I was expecting a "feet on the ground" catch, like they usually do, not a jump catch.  So I was not ready to track the receiver vertically when he jumped up.  The wider lens would have given me a buffer for unexpected movement.
My after-the-fact guess is that the receiver jumped to catch the ball, before the other guy could intercept the ball or prevent him from catching the ball.


----------



## ac12 (Sep 30, 2018)

ronlane said:


> @ac12, until about 2 weeks ago, I was in the same boat with only one camera. After getting a used 1D mk IV and using it as my main body with my 70-200mm, I can then carry a 7D mk II with a 24-70mm. I don't have the 300mm or 400mm yet.
> 
> I borrowed a 300mm f/2.8 for the college game I got last weekend and used the 300 and a 70-200 on the second body and that was a nice combination. I was able to switch to the 70-200mm when the teams would get inside the 20. I was lucky that I was in position that I did not have much come right in front of me where I was too close and needed a 24-70mm.



  I do have a 2nd body, my Olympus E-M1.  I could put the 12-60 on it and use it for the closer shots.  But the 12-60 is not a fast lens.
But I do not have a carry set up for 2 cameras.  And I have to think about and figure out how to manage two cameras, being a one camera shooter for so long.

I might have to wait for Christmas, and see if Santa will bring me an Olympus 12-100 f/4 lens


----------



## ronlane (Oct 1, 2018)

@ac12, I understand you on that. I just got my second body and I am using a blackrapid sling to carry that second body with. I have an peak designs slide that I could try too but I haven't at this time.


----------



## ac12 (Oct 8, 2018)

OK, report on my trial shooting football with two cameras.
Camera and lenses.

Primary camera Nikon D7200 + 70-200/4
Secondary camera Olympus EM-1 + 40-150/4-5.6
Setup:
Cross shoulder straps on each camera.  
I used a cross shoulder setup, so the unused camera could not accidentally slip off my shoulder and fall to the ground.​The lower strap on my left shoulder, with the secondary camera hanging on my right hip.
The upper strap on my right shoulder, with the primary camera hanging on my left hip.​
Results:

With cross shoulder straps, when lifting the secondary camera, the upper strap always got in the way of the lower strap.  It was clumsy to use the secondary camera.  I extend the lower strap, better, but it was not a good solution.  The strap setup needs more work.

Switching to the secondary camera took more time than I had, in a fast play, and I quickly gave up on that.  

I did not want to just DROP the primary camera, when I switched cameras, especially with the 70-200 lens on it.  So I lost time lowering the primary camera.
One idea is to attach the strap to an AS clamp on the tripod foot, which would reduce the stress on the lens mount, when quickly lowering the camera, and moving around.

The straps to the secondary camera was restricted by being below the straps of the primary camera.
Whatever camera is on the lower strap would be restricted.


You REALLY want the zoom rings on both cameras to turn in the SAME direction.
The Olympus zoom turned in the opposite direction than the Nikon, so I was turning the zoom in the wrong direction when I lifted the Olympus to shoot     Muscle memory does not work with lenses that do not zoom the same direction. 

I am going to try it again with the Panasonic zoom, which turns in the same direction as the Nikon zoom.  I don't know why I did not just switch to the Panasonic lens at half time  

Camera controls and operation should be as similar as possible, to avoid confusion when switching cameras.
On a separate unrelated issue, I had issues with the EM1, primarily with the EVF.  I am going to try a different configuration see if that solves or reduces the EVF problem.


----------



## floatingby (Oct 11, 2018)

ac12 said:


> Camera controls and operation should be as similar as possible, to avoid confusion when switching cameras.


Yep, and that was part of the problem I had last year shooting a D850 and a D610. The D850 has a joystick kind of control for focus point positioning, while the D610 use a 4 ways pad, muscle memory doesn't work for that. 
Even small changes make a big difference, for example: I shoot in either Group focus or D9 for football, but on the D850 I assigned the front PV button to trigger single point focus; when I shot the D500, on which you cannot assign the PV button for that, I was constantly trying to press the PV button out of muscle memory with confusing result.


----------

