Photo equipment for windsurfing shots
Peter
for taking windsurfing pics (that is, when I'm not on water myself). Since
I'm much better windsurfer than photographer (hint: I'm a terrible
photographer) I'd really like to know what other people are using for
windsurfing photos. Mostly I'm interested in focal length needed (to catch
those far out in the sea action shots), aperture (do I really need to shell
out for f/2.8?), and do I _really_ need image stabilized lens?
TIA,
Peter
Paul C.
70-200 F2.8 instead but i wanted the longer focal length. My wife was able
to take pics of my nephew and myself when we were out close to a mile with
some pretty clear shots (we made 8x10's and they look really nice). I am
happy i went with the 100-400 w/ image stabilization. i don;t think the
200mm would have been enough for me. on the other hand, a 1.4x extender and
the 70-200 2.8 would be a nice combo if you are closer to the shore.
"Peter" <pe...@greatnowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dqov6p$2rd$1...@news1.greatnowhere.com...
WARDOG
I have the 20D and asked myself the same question...decided it was time
to get a little more serious about my photography, and went for the
70-200mm f2.8 Image Stabilized lens...and Heliopan high quality
filters...UV and circular polarizer...glad I did...
http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20d/
http://surfingsports.com/images/canon_glass.jpg
I also have the Canon 300mm f2.8 with drop-in polarizing filter...
http://surfingsports.com/images/canon_real_camera.jpg
I use both of them with and without the 1.4X teleconverter...depending
on desired focal length...and also have a big Bogen tripod and monopod...
http://www.manfrotto.com/jsp/index.jsp
Remember, with this DSLR you end up with 1.6X the focal length indicated
on Canon EF lenses...so with a 1.4X teleconverter on a 200mm lens you
can get 448mm effective focal length...or the 300mm can yield 672mm in
this mode...oftentimes, this is too tight cropped , depending on venue...
I get some OK windsurfing shots every once in awhile...
I'm sure you will too...recdotter WillV has blown up a few outside
jumping shots that I've gotten of him jumping, into poster size...and
they are remarkably sharp...
http://www.surfingsports.com/gallery_index.asp
Most of the top galleries were with the 300mm f2.8...the lower ones are
with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS...and this one from the other day, that I
haven't added yet...
http://surfingsports.com/jalama_january/index.html
http://surfingsports.com/santa_barbara_paddlesurfing/index.html
WARDOG
http://surfingsports.com
sm...@seattletimes.com
shoot from the water, unless it's too cold.
WARDOG
it and annualize it, "expensive" becomes relative...some people say that
windsurfing is "expensive"...all depends on how much you enjoy doing the
activity I guess...
Regardless, I have a housing for my Olympus digital...
http://surfingsports.com/images/olympus_h20_housing1.jpg
http://surfingsports.com/images/olympus_h20_housing2.jpg
The number of keepers goes down exponentially, shooting from the
water...fun when you get one...but, you'll spend much more time trying
to get just one...
I have a waterproof helmetcam setup, also...and it's fun...but, much
lower resolution...and it's time intensive editing it up...and making
DVD's...
http://surfingsports.com/images/lipstick_pov_cam.jpg
http://surfingsports.com/images/xtremesportcams.jpg
Back to Peter's specific question...
I say if you can afford it, go for it...it's quality gear...and you'll
get some good windsurfing shots...if it's too spendy...just step it back
a notch...the Rebel with a non-IS lens will get some quality images as
well...
Please share them, when and if , you get them...
WARDOG
http://surfingsports.com
BatFrog
you should consider some type of protective cover
or waterproof case. Or maybe one of those old
cameras that used something called "film" 8^)
I just did a "post mortum" on an Olympus C-8080 that
had water damage. This camera looked perfect on the
exterior and upon disassembly it is apparent that only
a few drops of water got inside. But a few drops were
enough to totally destroy the tiny surface-mount components.
As an engineer who has designed and repaired all sorts
of electronics over the past 20 years, I think we've entered
a completely new era of "throw-away" cameras that sell
for more than $1000. The internal components are an order of
magnitude smaller (and more fragile) than just five years
ago.
Not to single out the Olympus brand, as I'm sure all the
current makes and models are similar, but what you have
are three or four double sided circuit boards mounted with
the most tiny components (typical resistor size less than
one half mm.) and numerous ribbon connectors lacing the
boards together. No water resistant varnish or overcoat
on the circuit boards; no gasket or seal on the camera
case. Even normal dew and condensation is likely to
kill these circuits.
A single drop of water on one of these components (when
the device is powered up) causes instant electrolytic
corrosion and melt-down.
Sorry for the long rant, but at the price of top of the line
digital cameras, most folks don't realize they are buying
a very disposable product.
Tom W. (BatFrog)
J
difference?
JD
WARDOG
> What exacly is an Image Stabilized lens and does it make that much
> difference?
>
> JD
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
WARDOG
http://surfingsports.com
WARDOG
Yeppers...comes with the territory...they definitely have a limited
lifespan if you actually use them...where I shoot can be pretty nasty
for electronics...
http://www.surfingsports.com/images/wardog_jalama_vidshoot.jpg
Even using a hood, I've had cameras practically melt down from salt
conductivity shorting electronic internals out while shooting at the
beach...and then there is sand damage...
Don't even bother buying an extended warranty...they won't honor it...
The Oly is a good camera...the only non-Canon camera that I've ever
owned...you could get the housing and use Silica Gel dessicant moisture
absorbent packs...
WARDOG
http://surfingsports.com
Glenn Woodell
convertor. I also shoot with an 80-200/2.8. Looks like I may be
getting a new body along with some new glass.
Nikon D2X with 300/2.8 and 80-200/2.8, both Vibration Reduction. The
400/2.8 is possible but it's just too much of a horse to be practical.
Glenn
Peter
thanks for the exhaustive reply! I've been recommended Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
which is definitely a nice glass, but lacks IS. Do you find IS to be really
valuable? I was starting to think that at fast shutter speeds IS becomes
redundant - is it really so?
> I also have the Canon 300mm f2.8 with drop-in polarizing filter...
>
> http://surfingsports.com/images/canon_real_camera.jpg
>
That sucker is HUGE! How much does it weigh? I doubt it will be practical
for me... no way wife will allow such a monster in suitcase when travelling
to someplace warm & windy.
> I use both of them with and without the 1.4X teleconverter...depending on
> desired focal length...and also have a big Bogen tripod and monopod...
Quality tripod/monopod is high on my shopping list right now. Manfrotto
seems good, but I really wanted monopod that can be converted into stable
tripod... havent found one just yet
> Remember, with this DSLR you end up with 1.6X the focal length indicated
> on Canon EF lenses...so with a 1.4X teleconverter on a 200mm lens you can
> get 448mm effective focal length...or the 300mm can yield 672mm in this
> mode...oftentimes, this is too tight cropped , depending on venue...
I know about 1.6x crop factor... so if I get Sigma 70-200mm + 2x APO
teleconverter I'll end up with effective 640mm f/5.6 for about 800$. Not
bad, but it lacks IS... do I _really_ need it??
> Most of the top galleries were with the 300mm f2.8...the lower ones are
> with the 70-200mm f2.8 IS...and this one from the other day, that I
> haven't added yet...
> http://surfingsports.com/jalama_january/index.html
> http://surfingsports.com/santa_barbara_paddlesurfing/index.html
Pretty good pics... but then we already knew you can shoot good ones ;)
Peter
WARDOG
> Quality tripod/monopod is high on my shopping list right now. Manfrotto
> seems good, but I really wanted monopod that can be converted into stable
> tripod... havent found one just yet
I have this monopod...I trust my camera/lens on it:
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/cache/offonce/pid/2372?livid=103|113&idx=115
My main tripod is too big to fly with...
I used to shoot mostly video, so I got the best one I could afford at
the time...the tripod for video is almost equally as critical a
component as the camera itself...personally, I have a hard time
tolerating hand held video...or jerky vid with non-fluid head tripod...
painful...
>> thanks for the exhaustive reply! I've been recommended Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8
>> which is definitely a nice glass, but lacks IS. Do you find IS to be really
>> valuable? I was starting to think that at fast shutter speeds IS becomes
>> redundant - is it really so?
First question...
Sigma vs. Canon 70-200 F2.8
There are people on both sides...but, far more people on the Canon
side...you'll have the lens for 10 years...look at it in annualized
terms...if you are going to take hand held or even monopod windsurfing
action shots with your 20D...and you want to have a high keeper
ratio...there is only ONE answer...Canon 70-200 F2.8 L IS USM...
"Because TC's (teleconverters) cut down on available light, they also
negatively impact focus speed. The 2X will reduce the light 4 times so
it will be that much worse than the 1.4x which cuts the light in half.
That is one of the reasons that I bought the Canon over the Sigma. With
the reduced light of the 1.4X the Sigma was significantly slower than
the Canon...much more noticeable than when comparing the bare lenses."
"As far as the comparison to the Sigma goes, I know all about that. I
initially bought the Sigma to save money vs. the Canon. I ended up
returning it for the Canon. The Sigma I got was much, much softer than
the Canon at F2.8. It really had to be stopped down to F4.5 or F5.6 to
get decent quality which negated the big aperature of the lens. This is
counter to the results of Photodo, where they actually found their Sigma
to be ever so slightly sharper wide open then their Canon. I considered
ordering a second Sigma to replace the faulty one, but in the course of
testing several lenses I found a second reason to buy the Canon. The
Canon was much faster at achieving focus than the Sigma...and this was
greatly exacerbated when a 1.4X teleconverter was installed. Being that,
I wanted the lens for sports, like you, focus speed was a very high
priority on my list. I reluctantly spent the extra $500 dollars for the
Canon version."
IS vs. non-IS...
I posted a couple of links that answer that exact question better than I
can...almost everyone says it's a no-brainer...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
Here's the bottomline:
"The decision between the non-IS and the IS version of this lens is a
no-brainer. The extra $750 gets you a lens with far greater versatility.
It will get you shots that you otherwise will miss. If that's not worth
the extra money, I don't know what is.
If you already own the original 70~200mm f/2.8L then the decision to
upgrade is a bit tougher. You already know how good this lens is. If you
can find someone to give you a good price for your old lens, and feel
that adding IS will make sense for your style of shooting, then I
believe it's worthwhile.
As for me, once the lens been returned to Canon Canada, (who were kind
enough to lend it to me for this location test), I needed to figure how
to fit one within my budget. It didn't take me long. A month later I had
bought my own.
Conclusion: Recommended without reservation."
"In the Fall of 2001 Canon ended the waiting with the announcement and
shipment of the next generation 70~200mm f/2.8L IS lens. Unfortunately
it has a street price some U.S. $750 more than its predecessor. How
would they compare? And, would the new lens be worth the extra money?
Old Vs. New
Cosmetically there is little difference between the lenses. (The new IS
model is seen at left in the picture below). Of course the new lens has
the usual IS controls. Canon claims that the new lens uses a second
generation IS technology that permits the lens to be hand-held at as
much as three stops slower shutter speed than without — a stop better
than their IS technology in previous lenses. As with their other recent
high-end IS lenses, the IS does not need to be disabled when the lens is
tripod mounted.
Frankly, there's little point in showing you the endless images of the
lens tests done at various apertures and focal length. The two lenses
tested essentially the same — at least within my ability to
differentiate. But, I was most anxious to see how much of an edge the IS
technology would provide.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/70-200is.shtml
"How Well Does Image Stabilization Work?
Our first tests of the 70-200/2.8L IS lens were very encouraging. Here
are some images taken with a Canon D30 body, standing up, with the zoom
set to 200mm, of a building in New York City:
http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/70-200
The bottom line seems to be that acceptable results are obtainable at
1/30th of a second. That's 3 f-stops better than you'd expect from the
"1/focal-length" rule of thumb."
"In my fifteen years (so far) as a professional photographer, two years
as a photography student and five years as an enthusiastic amateur
before that...
This is my favourite lens that I have ever owned. Bar none. I love just
about everything about it and, at over five years old, it has given
unbelievable service. This lens was one of the reasons that I switched
from Nikon to Canon. It is, in common with the rest of the L series,
rather heavy and certainly bulky but it has that characteristic balance
too. I find that the monopod ring sits perfectly on my left palm when I
am using the lens and because that is the point of balance the whole set
up is very well balanced too. I'm sorry to be so gushing in my praise of
this lens, but I really cannot fault it."
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=12&sort=7&cat=27&page=1
>> I know about 1.6x crop factor... so if I get Sigma 70-200mm + 2x APO
>> teleconverter I'll end up with effective 640mm f/5.6 for about 800$. Not
>> bad, but it lacks IS... do I _really_ need it??
How frustrated are you going to be taking dark, out of focus, "not bad"
pictures on a great or epic day after spending $800 on mediocre glass,
when the camera is capable of sooooo much more?
Shoulda...woulda...coulda...save the grief of buyer's remorse...
f5.6 is way too slow to shoot windsurfing action...
Again, 2X TC knocks light down 4X...
I needed it...
p.s. I'm not an authorized Canon dealer...just sharing part of my
decision making process with you, since you asked...
WARDOG
http://surfingsports.com
John Stewart
replaced in the Canon line with a nicer (and slightly pricier) 70-300 IS. I
could use more than the 300mm at times. I don't think 200mm would cut it.
The IS is more important in helping frame the shot than stabilizing the
image. Let's face it; you're typically shooting at fast shutter speeds
because of the action involved. There also "tends" to be a lot of light,
even if it's not bright sunlight which allows for fast shutter speeds. I
find the IS helps me hand-hold the lens even at 300mm (480mm 35mm
equivalent) and keeps my naturally shaky had able to frame the shot. But a
monopod is helpful as well.
Circular polarizing filter is a must.
John Stewart