VolleyBall

© Bill Johnson

VolleyBall

Charles E. Mann 2/20/2008 9:30:13 AM

This is a great shot! I must say, all your shots are very good! I also enjoy shooting sports, but I still am trying to get shots this good! If you don't mind, can I ask, 1. What was the gym like? 2. What lens? 3. What speed and aperture? Keep up the good work! #859246

Bill Johnson 2/20/2008 8:53:12 PM

Thanks so much. I'm on vacation now and Internet is at a premium, so I respond more fully next week when I return. #5524281

Bill Johnson 2/27/2008 8:31:32 AM

Thanks so much. The gym light is probably average. I fight light all the time. Currently, my lens is the 70-200 2.8 zoom. Sometimes I'll use a teleconverter. For this picture I was using the 1.4 teleconverter in order to get in tighter. Of course, that raised the f-stop to 4.0. I think the shutter speed was at 1/500 of greater but less than 1/1000. The ISO was around 2000 to 2400. #5561743

Charles E. Mann 2/27/2008 1:11:45 PM

thanks for getting back with me, sorry to bother your vacation. hope you enjoyed it. like I said before I really like your work. do you shot for fun, family in the sports, or a pro sports shooter? I will have to try to shot at higher ISO's I've always been afraid of the grain #5562903

Bill Johnson 2/27/2008 3:54:31 PM

Charles, Well I'm not a pro but these are not family unless you want to consider all the students at my High School family. But I am a serious amateur who is trying to shoot at a professional level. You may need to think about noise reduction tools is you shoot high ISO's
#5563584

Emile Abbott 3/5/2008 6:44:21 AM

Excellent action capture Bill and congrats re Photoflash selection. I have the same lens and glad to see it works well with the 1.4 teleconverter for an inside shot. #5595348

Jorge E. Saenz 3/5/2008 7:21:19 AM

Very Nice Shot, Where were standing to get that shot ?
#5595548

Bill Johnson 3/6/2008 5:28:17 AM

Jorge, I don't recall exactly where I was, but I was probably to the right of the net shooting as straight back as I could. #5600669

Timothy J. Smith 3/7/2008 6:22:07 AM

Hi, I am also a serious amateur who is trying to shoot at a professional level - I love that line! I'm having a hard time with this ISO thing. You said you shot this pic at 2000 to 2400. That is crazy! I'm afraid to go over 400. I thought all the tools you need are in Photoshop but I'm always hearing about other software that cleans up noise. I shoot a lot in gyms and churches. Please talk to me about ISO and noise. Thank You, Timothy #5606231

Bill Johnson 3/7/2008 6:58:38 AM

Timothy, I know your feeling. I used to shoot with a Canon 20D, but I really had lots of noise if I went above 800. So, I now shoot with the Canon Mark III. Prabably, that's the only reason I go to those levels. It just plain deals with high ISOs better. If I do need noise reduction which now is only just a touch, I use Noiseware Professional which is a plugin for Photoshop. #5606385

Timothy J. Smith 3/7/2008 1:10:52 PM

Thanks for the feedback Bill. Now I think I understand. The Canon Mark 3 has a full size sensor so you can shoot like that. I am a Nikon person. I have a D100 and a D200 and a couple fast lenses. Thats where all my $$ is at. So should my next letter be to Nikon and ask them why they are dragging their feet. I want a camera with a full sensor. Am I looking at this the right way? Thanks, Timothy #5608022

Bill Johnson 3/7/2008 3:23:35 PM

Timothy, I think your close. The sensor on the mark three is larger but still not full sized. It's also a factor of the firmware too. However, take heart. I think the new Nikon 300 has better higher ISO processing. You might give that a look. #5608589

Dale M. Garvey 3/11/2008 10:50:54 AM

I can confirm that the Nikon D300 will help you with your light problems. I often shoot at ISO 2500 and can shoot with a 80-200 F2.8 with a 1.7 extender. I also shoot gymnastics which requires even a higher shutter speed. #5627754

Charles E. Mann 3/19/2008 1:35:57 PM

Congrads on your photo & discussions being picked and ran on the monthly email of better photo. #5664302

Dale M. Garvey 3/19/2008 2:06:33 PM

If you want to blow $5000 on a D3, you will never be sorry. My D300 has open so many doors to places that I would not shoot before.

Charles, I looked for your gallery, but could not pull up your name. One of my favorite shots was of a Charles Mann sacking Lomax. #5664402

Timothy J. Smith 3/19/2008 2:14:19 PM

The D3 and D300 are two different cameras, correct ? #5664437

Dale M. Garvey 3/19/2008 2:17:54 PM

The D300 has the same sensor as the D3. The D3 can get you good shots at 3200 and even presentable ones at 6400. It shoots at more frames per second. To get more info on either camera google on the D3 or D300. That is why there are so many D200s on Ebay. #5664452

Amritendu Maji 3/19/2008 3:01:06 PM

The Nikon D3 has a full frame (FX) sensor while the D300 has the DX or the 2/3 size sensor. Here full size means same as a 35mm film. Both of the cameras are great with high ISO's but of course D3 (@ $5000) outperforms D300.

BTW, I used to be scared of graininess due to high ISO values. After some time, I realized that underexposure causes more graininess than a properly exposed high ISO frame. With the advent of noise reducing software like Noise Ninja, Neat Image etc., one can clean a lot of the graininess out of the photo. #5664624

Charles E. Mann 3/20/2008 4:45:18 AM

Thanks for looking me up, sorry I havn't added a gallery. As amazing as it seems Charles Mann from the Redskins and I are not related, even though my father's name is Charles Mann,Sr. LOL. I was reading an article about the D3 and D300 both are GREAT CAMERAS if it's in the Lord's will I am trying to get a D300, $5000 WAYYYYYY out of my range. I do alot sports and the D300 sounds just right. But I also plan on using the Noise Ninja on my sports shots and Kick up the ISO on my D70S. #5667340

Dale M. Garvey 3/20/2008 7:29:33 AM

If you do a lot of sports you will find the D300 has a lot better response time. The new CS3 and Elements 4 have good noise reduction programs. My D2h is still a great camera for normal light. Better frame per second but the noise is like from the dark ages. The next time I would recommend is the 80-200 mm silent wave which is pricy (not the consumer model) and later the 1.7 extender. #5668037

To discuss, first log in or sign up (buttons are at top center of page).

Description



Exif: F Number: 4, Exposure Bias Value: 0.00, ExposureTime: 1/400 seconds, Flash: did not fire., ISO: 3200, FocalLength: 130.00 mm, Model: Canon EOS-1D Mark III

Uploaded on 12/21/2007 8:07:32 PM

BetterPhoto.com Editor's Pick


Copyright for this gallery photo belongs solely to Bill Johnson. Images may not be copied, downloaded, or used in any way without the expressed, written permission of the photographer.
Contact photographer via gallery.
Log in to follow or message this photographer or report this photo.