I'd love to get some C&C on this. I still haven't imported all my cards. I shot with my D90 with a 70-200 on it and my d700 with a 400mm f/2.8 on it (and for a short time 1.7TC) as well as a 24-70 for some stuff in the stands. I'm shooting again tomorrow. This is my first time ever using a super telephoto prime. The longest glass I had used before this was the 70-200 with the 1.7TC on my d700. I really like the 70-200 on the D90 and am not really sure what I think about the 400, it is really hard to use. I'd really like some suggestions for when I shoot the game tomorrow.
Exposure and white balance look right on and good action. The only critique I would have is I like to see the players eyes, and none of these shots show the eyes very clearly. Good work though.
Thanks for that, I'm going to try to get shots of the eyes. It obviosuly is quite difficult to get eyes when you are shooting from the press box, but that is the nature of the beast when shooting at DU, you get to shoot some great players, but if you want to shoot ice level it is through the marked up glass.
You are starting with too much too fast. D700 is a beautiful camera that can do amazing things - along with that 400 2.8 it is one of the best setups you can buy.
But how long have you been shooting? I think that these pictures show that possibly you are biting off more than you can chew.
Try just shooting with a 70-200 w/ and w/o a x1.4 and get really good with that, then take a look at the bigger lenses. Just because you have the lenses doesnt mean you know how to properly use them. (again not trying to be rude, this post is in a humble tone)
the pictures are not bad - i have seen much worse. But maybe hold off on buying that 400 until you get more comfortable with it.
Keep on shooting and keep on posting - you will improve drastically
I've shot with the 70-200 but I can't get close enough. I have the d700 for things other than sports. I've just been getting in to sports, I primarily do photo illustrations and stuff. I really appreciate your honesty and I have decided not to buy a 400, its too much lens for me and is not versatile enough. I would have preferred to rent a 200-400 but the rental options in denver are limited and 400 was all I could get. BTW this was my fourth hockey game shooting and firt time ever using a long lens. I shot soccer today with it and got much better pictures (I used a tripod and ball head instead of handholding). Thanks for the comments Dann and I will definitely keep posting, I have been shooting for about 4 years, but have only really started shooting sports and getting more in to photography in the last 2 months (for sports) and last year for photography. I shot with a D100 and crappy tamrom super zoom before.
Nothing necessarily wrong with the IQ in the images, and as Rick said even your WB is good here.
But there's nothing about these images that tells me anything. The first is a tight crop potentially of a goalie stretching. The second is a great snow-show with no face and no puck. The third looks like a pretty good crunch and likely your best shot, although again no eyes - I understand difficult to get them from your vantage point on THIS particular shot. The fourth is a face-off scrum, the fifth apparently a ceremony (text may have helped put some context to it), and the last one a repost of the third.
I'm wondering if the 400 is just plain too long for your shooting location... or are these cropped down heavily? Tight is right, I realize, but there still has to be some emotion or context to the shot.
Keep at it, you're off and running, but try to capture something that tells the viewer something. Faces are a NEAR-must, and I always try to get the puck in the frame too. Shooting from up high presents some challenges no doubt, but maybe aim for players carrying the puck out so you get them facing you, or coming away from the corners. Those will tell the tale.
Still - your IQ is good, so as I said, now just need to worry about grabbing the action that sells your shots.
Great, thanks dj dunzie. I'm going to work on that tonight, i'm sitting in the press box right now. I do have some shots of players with their faces and the puck but they don't show competition and are usually pretty bland otherwise, that is why I didn't post them. Thanks again for all the comments.
Dann, I saw that (and actually replied a few days back). Check out my new posting with shots from yesterday's game. Also if you look at hockey shots taken from where I am able to shoot from the faces are not as well defined, I've compared my stuff in terms of faces visible (at least my stuff from yesterday's game) and they compare with what the big shots sent out, I checked with what the AP guy transmitted and checked some others and it seems that in terms of faces we are about even.
Personally, I think #2 and #4 look a bit over exposed. The whites are actually too white on my monitor. The others are exposed better, I think.
Personally, I think that the 400 might be too long for hockey. I think a 300/2.8 or maybe the Sigma 120-300 2.8 or even the 70-200 might work better for hockey.
I'd sure love that 400 for my soccer shoots, though.
I had thought it was too long after this game but check out my shots from the most recent game. I shot those with the 400 as well and it seemed just about right.
I am shooting a few levels up and no that is not my strobe, I just managed to catch someone elses and I liked the effect. Also as I've said before check out my photos from Saturday night, I feel like I improved a lot based on the suggestions. Also I am shooting from 2 levels up and I'm on one end of the ice. I use a 70-200 when the action is on my side of the ice and a 400 for the other side.
