Sports videography

[BTM_Pix]

On 5/29/2019 at 3:44 AM, kye said:

 

What did you do on your GX80 / B4 lens setup?  Was it sharp?  Did it cover the whole sensor?

For a bit of context on that Angenieux and GX80 combo, I've just put it back on and shot a quick test of it at different stages of its range.

  

[kye]

11 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

For a bit of context on that Angenieux and GX80 combo, I've just put it back on and shot a quick test of it at different stages of its range.

Impressive zoom range.  The sixth image appears to have some separation between colours in the top right of frame (the edges of the tree leaves)?  It's got that red/blue 3D colour separation look.  Is that the 3CCD alignment issue, or just a bit of CA exacerbated by JPG compression perhaps?  I can't see any separation on any of the other images though, which seems odd.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Impressive zoom range.  The sixth image appears to have some separation between colours in the top right of frame (the edges of the tree leaves)?  It's got that red/blue 3D colour separation look.  Is that the 3CCD alignment issue, or just a bit of CA exacerbated by JPG compression perhaps?  I can't see any separation on any of the other images though, which seems odd.

After going out and climbing the tree in question, I can confirm that it is just less than stellar rendering/focusing the red 'teeth' of the plants against the blue sky.

When I say "climbing the tree in question" I mean taking a shot of it with a real lens

 

[kye]

Just doing some casual browsing for zoom lenses that go to 400mm and noticing that they're all slow (5.6 or more), and wondered what that really means in terms of DoF.

At 100m, here's how the DoF comes out (from DoFmaster) :

• My 135/2.8 has 64.5m DoF
• My 200/4 has 39.3m DoF
• My 70-210/3.8 at 70mm has "infinite" DoF
• My 70-210/3.8 at 210mm has 33.4m DoF
• A hypothetical 100-400/4.5-6.3 at 400mm has ~15m DoF
• A hypothetical 100-400/4.5-6.7 at 400mm has ~16m DoF
• A hypothetical (and expensive!) 100-400/4.5-5.6 at 400mm has ~13.4m DoF
• A hypothetical 100-400 would only have to be f13 at 400mm to match the 33m DoF of my 70-210/f3.8 lens

Interesting example of how aperture behaves at long zoom lengths.  It also kind of answers the question about those 18-400/3.5-6.3mm lenses in terms of them being pretty shallow DoF at 400mm, but zoomed out a bit to 200mm it's likely to still be close to f6 and that's not nearly so shallow a DoF at around 60m.

[noone]

That is with a Canon 1.6x crop camera, you get different results with different formats and more particularly, changing the subject distance from 100m also changes the DOF a fair bit even 10m either way and the greater the distance away from that, the bigger the variation in DOF.

 

I have an old Tamron adaptall 70-350 constant f4.5 lens.    This was a very expensive lens in its day but does not use any ED/LD or fluoro elements and so is not as good as modern lenses but while rare, can be found pretty cheap on Ebay if you are lucky (and don't mind the occasional purple fringing).    I hardly use it though as the Tamron adaptall 300 2.8 is much better.

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, kye said:

Just doing some casual browsing for zoom lenses that go to 400mm and noticing that they're all slow (5.6 or more)

They do exist but not at the sort of price or with the sort of footprint you're after  

This "even sillier lens to put on an MFT camera than the B4" from my previous post is actually a 200-400mm f4 zoom.

Back in the real world, Sigma actually do a lens that is quite close to your hypothetical 100-400 f4.5-f5.6 which is their 120-400mm f4.5-5.6 APO OS which used is usually around £300-350.

Its a decent performer, has OS and with a smart adapter you'd have some AF. 

 

[homestar_kevin]

Over the past year or so I've been going down the cheap, long telephoto rabbit hole and have come out with some really nice lenses.

But for m4/3 I think my favorite has been the Panasonic 100-300mm mki.

It gets hit on reviews for it's slow AF, but it still has AF which I look at as a bonus anyway. In practice, the af has been pretty good on my gx85 and g7 for stills, I haven't used it in video really.

It has the same optics as the 100-300 mkii, it has IS, it's small and light for what it is, and I got one used for right around $300

 

 

 

[kye]

On 5/6/2019 at 12:59 AM, Mako Sports said:

A good rule of thumb is if I need audio then 4K 24. Usually huddles and the occasional B roll shot. 

Am I right in assuming you mean that you shoot 1080p120 by default and only 4K24 for specific shots?

I've just done some tests of different modes and now have an understanding of the tradeoffs involved.  In my case I'm struggling to reach the action with a long enough lens, so I don't want to shoot 1080 because I can't crop into it in post, which leaves me shooting 4k50.  Maybe I should switch to 1080p100 when the action is closer and I won't need to crop in post.

EdIt: Or I simply live with the fact that I can't do 20% speed slow-motion but are limited to 50% speed slow-motion.  It's not as epic, but...

Damn the size of our playing fields!

[thebrothersthre3]

38 minutes ago, kye said:

Am I right in assuming you mean that you shoot 1080p120 by default and only 4K24 for specific shots?

I've just done some tests of different modes and now have an understanding of the tradeoffs involved.  In my case I'm struggling to reach the action with a long enough lens, so I don't want to shoot 1080 because I can't crop into it in post, which leaves me shooting 4k50.  Maybe I should switch to 1080p100 when the action is closer and I won't need to crop in post.

EdIt: Or I simply live with the fact that I can't do 20% speed slow-motion but are limited to 50% speed slow-motion.  It's not as epic, but...

Damn the size of our playing fields!

Time to get a Zcam or FS5 with atomos recorder ?

[Mako Sports]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Am I right in assuming you mean that you shoot 1080p120 by default and only 4K24 for specific shots?

I've just done some tests of different modes and now have an understanding of the tradeoffs involved.  In my case I'm struggling to reach the action with a long enough lens, so I don't want to shoot 1080 because I can't crop into it in post, which leaves me shooting 4k50.  Maybe I should switch to 1080p100 when the action is closer and I won't need to crop in post.

EdIt: Or I simply live with the fact that I can't do 20% speed slow-motion but are limited to 50% speed slow-motion.  It's not as epic, but...

Damn the size of our playing fields!

Yes i'm usually always at 120p. Tbh where you setup your camera makes a huge impact. I shoot pro soccer sometimes and cant stand the size of the field. I actually think soccer would be a lot more interesting if they set the field marking to be around 30 or 40 yards shorter and no more than 50 yards wide. There would be more goals per match. 

Something like a Sigma 150 - 600 would be ideal for soccer but that's besides the point.

Don't be afraid to move to get a better shot, If your kid plays forward/striker set your chair on the offensive end, middie? set up to dead middle or slightly to the left or right of the mid field line whether they are an attacking middie or defending middie etc, etc.  Most of my reel shots and favorite overall are where i'm physically closer to players. 

 

 

Oh and I saw this paintball edit a few months ago and got hooked, planning on shooting the next local pro tournament. 

caution: music is explicit af 

 

[kye]

24 minutes ago, Mako Sports said:

Yes i'm usually always at 120p. Tbh where you setup your camera makes a huge impact. I shoot pro soccer sometimes and cant stand the size of the field. I actually think soccer would be a lot more interesting if they set the field marking to be around 30 or 40 yards shorter and no more than 50 yards wide. There would be more goals per match. 

Something like a Sigma 150 - 600 would be ideal for soccer but that's besides the point.

Don't be afraid to move to get a better shot, If your kid plays forward/striker set your chair on the offensive end, middie? set up to dead middle or slightly to the left or right of the mid field line whether they are an attacking middie or defending middie etc, etc.  Most of my reel shots and favorite overall are where i'm physically closer to players. 

 

 

Oh and I saw this paintball edit a few months ago and got hooked, planning on shooting the next local pro tournament. 

caution: music is explicit af 

 

I'm gradually refining where I choose to setup.  I've found that there's a fantastic angle about half-way between the coaches tent and the 50m line, which is here:

However, it's so fantastic that every time anyone does anything of note there will be a player, umpire, water-person, etc standing exactly in the way, just for the critical moment.  The number of shots I have where something cool is about to happen, someone runs across your shot, and as they exit your field of view you only see the aftermath of what happened...  let's just say it's beyond amazing in its regularity!!  
I've learned not to position myself there, but normally try to be closer to the middle so the opposite end is closer and I've got greater coverage.

It's especially fun to note the comment on the above image that the length of the ground isn't fixed, it's variable.  Also fun to note is that unless the ground is used for games where there is a lot at stake, many of them don't even meet those (very loose) standards, so basically the distances are variable everywhere you go!  Unsurprisingly, a country where "she'll be right mate" is a common saying as soon as you leave a cities inner suburbs isn't a country with precision and quality in its DNA.

I don't know much about soccer, but apparently the grounds are smaller than ours (although our main grounds are on the small end of that scale, so probably comparable considering ours don't have corners):

The 150-600mm did look like it would be great, but the Tokina 150-500 looks a lot cheaper and might be within reach of my wallet.  I was looking at FD 100-300 lenses but they're not that much longer than my 70-210, but 500 sure is longer!  Plus it has a tripod mount on the lens itself, which is way cool! ???

I have been studying framing of football action, in video as well as in photographs, and worked out I need to get closer.  Most of the action happens a long way away and shots don't need much head or foot room in frame, and most shots are waist-up or closer, so the 500mm or 600mm does seem like the way to go.

That video of paintball looks like fun, although it looks like you would be on the field with the players?  There's a shot mid-way through where a paintball hits the camera lens, or at least a screen of some kind very closely in front of the camera.  I would imagine that a cameraperson might make themselves unpopular by pointing at players hiding and revealing their locations, so learning the etiquette of the situation might be a thing.  That video didn't seem to have 120p slow-motion, so I think your setup might generate a punchier end result, with the fast bits looking faster and the slow bits really revelling in those crazy split-second moments.  There's the potential for slow-motion gold almost everywhere you look in that situation, everything from people firing, the balls travelling, people getting hit and the splatter, as well as the acrobatic elements and, of course, the elation of victory and the pain of getting hit somewhere it hurts!

 

Edit: actually, just remembered that teleconverters are a thing, and it turns out they're cheaper than buying a new lens, in fact, so much cheaper I don't need funding approval from the CFO! ???

[webrunner5]

I have a Tokina 80-400mm and it is amazingly small for it's reach. They are like a 120 Dollars or less on ebay. Built like a tank and a bit on the heavy side due to it's construction, comes with a nice factory bag also. Even the lens hood is about 50 miles ahead of any Sigma lens hood, which are mostly crap. Use it on my Nikon.

This picture shows it fully extended hood and all. My Sigma 170-500mm seems like it is 3 foot long compared to the Tokina!

[Mako Sports]

Do my eyes deceive me https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-are-those-the-leaked-images-of-the-new-sony-200-600g-oss-f-5-6-6-3-fe-lens/

[kye]

8 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I have a Tokina 80-400mm and it is amazingly small for it's reach. They are like a 120 Dollars or less on ebay. Built like a tank and a bit on the heavy side due to it's construction, comes with a nice factory bag also. Even the lens hood is about 50 miles ahead of any Sigma lens hood, which are mostly crap. Use it on my Nikon.

This picture shows it fully extended hood and all. My Sigma 170-500mm seems like it is 3 foot long compared to the Tokina!

Wow..  that extra 100mm sure adds a huge amount of length to the overall size!  and strange considering that the longer one is a 3x zoom and the shorter is 5x, which you'd think would be the other way around.  Optics doesn't make sense to me a lot of the time!

4 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

Do my eyes deceive me https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr3-are-those-the-leaked-images-of-the-new-sony-200-600g-oss-f-5-6-6-3-fe-lens/

Ha!  

[noone]

On ‎6‎/‎1‎/‎2019 at 8:11 PM, kye said:

I'm gradually refining where I choose to setup.  I've found that there's a fantastic angle about half-way between the coaches tent and the 50m line, which is here:

However, it's so fantastic that every time anyone does anything of note there will be a player, umpire, water-person, etc standing exactly in the way, just for the critical moment.  The number of shots I have where something cool is about to happen, someone runs across your shot, and as they exit your field of view you only see the aftermath of what happened...  let's just say it's beyond amazing in its regularity!!  
I've learned not to position myself there, but normally try to be closer to the middle so the opposite end is closer and I've got greater coverage.

It's especially fun to note the comment on the above image that the length of the ground isn't fixed, it's variable.  Also fun to note is that unless the ground is used for games where there is a lot at stake, many of them don't even meet those (very loose) standards, so basically the distances are variable everywhere you go!  Unsurprisingly, a country where "she'll be right mate" is a common saying as soon as you leave a cities inner suburbs isn't a country with precision and quality in its DNA.

 

I usually try and get between the 50mm and behind post (about halfway or slightly to the behind post).    Reasons for that are the action has to get closer due to the smaller width and that is were they are converging on so you can often get more action.  Means I can also get away with shorter lenses too (a short zoom often as well as a longer lens)  If the game is one sided, it is easy enough to just go to that end (and switch each quarter).     I would often go that position (switching at the quarters) but might have one quarter experimenting elsewhere.

Again, being anti-social taking photos helps.

[kye]

2 hours ago, noone said:

I usually try and get between the 50mm and behind post (about halfway or slightly to the behind post).    Reasons for that are the action has to get closer due to the smaller width and that is were they are converging on so you can often get more action.  Means I can also get away with shorter lenses too (a short zoom often as well as a longer lens)  If the game is one sided, it is easy enough to just go to that end (and switch each quarter).     I would often go that position (switching at the quarters) but might have one quarter experimenting elsewhere.

Again, being anti-social taking photos helps.

That makes total sense, and I can see that it would result in lots of shots where people are running towards you, providing the best opportunities for shots.  

I'd have to weigh up the fact I normally sit with the wife and watch the game together while I shoot, plus the fact it would make my son all the more aware of me filming him play, against the better footage.  Life was never meant to be easy I guess!

[kye]

My 2x teleconverter for PK mount arrived today.  It was a bargain, especially considering that when I opened up the original instructions that came with it, I discovered that it begins with:

"The TELEPLUS is the finest quality lens extender on the market"

Score!!  Even @BTM_Pix can't argue with that!

I took some test images through my Sun 70-210mm f3.8, both with and without the TC, and initial impressions suggest that it does a pretty good job of zooming into the horrible CA that comes from the zoom lens!  

It's a wonder why the person was selling it, maybe it was the whacking great fingerprint on one side of the glass element... ???

I'll be sure to take some test shots over the weekend to properly evaluate it, but it will be great to have some extra reach, considering I'll now have the FF equivalent of a 280-840mm f16 lens.

[Mako Sports]

 Forgot I even owned this lens, the Canon FD 70-210 F4 that I paid $25 for on eBay. I used only once for a little hype edit a few years ago and forgot about it. But its an old school pump zoom which is nice cause you can control focus and zoom with one hand.

Might be a good choice for your GH5. 

This is the edit 

2nd video is what made me remember it lol. Thinking about doing a vintage 200mm F3.5/F4 now 

[Mako Sports]

The eagle has landed! 

[kye]

23 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

The eagle has landed! 

Nice!

What are the additional features this gives that you're most excited about?

On 6/6/2019 at 7:57 PM, Mako Sports said:

 Forgot I even owned this lens, the Canon FD 70-210 F4 that I paid $25 for on eBay. I used only once for a little hype edit a few years ago and forgot about it. But its an old school pump zoom which is nice cause you can control focus and zoom with one hand.

Very similar to the Sun zoom I have now, the pump style is very nice to use.

I must admit that I've been a little curious of the difference between what good optics vs no-name optics are like, so I just ordered a Canon 70-210 F4, a Canon 2X TC, and an FD-MFT adapter (my first canon to m43 adapter!) so I'll be able to compare genuine glass vs the no-name stuff.

On 6/6/2019 at 7:57 PM, Mako Sports said:

Thinking about doing a vintage 200mm F3.5/F4 now 

Do it!! Lots of great vintage primes out there.  There's lots of love for the Takumars (which have the focus backwards) but the Minolta stuff is also excellent.