Thanks Dave
starting over
- Thread starter Randy
- Start date
Several years ago when I applied with Maxpreps I was shooting basketball at the time. They absolutely would not approve me until I used flash. It didn't matter to them that the non flash shots looked just as good, they insisted on flash. Are they the same with football needing flash?
They used to be when I last shot for them but someone told me at last nights game they have changed, time will tell, they used to be a PIA
Ouch! How do they work that out with the local press (assuming there still is local press)?
--Ken
I guess the press can use the images in pubs
somebody will eventually sue this idea out of the them
So funny to see high school sports photography this tightly controlled. I shot NCAA college football for two seasons for an online publication and I do not recall the restrictions being so tight.
--Ken
google the new policy, the wording is very harsh
Kind of sad that high school sports has been so comoditized. I appreciate they are broadcasting events, but it appears as if they want a monopoly on all media.
--Ken
Meanwhile in New Zealand - we just go where we want and do what we want with the images!! If you have a big camera and lens nobody questions you!
I recently picked up a 200 f/2, I going to give that a whirl on my D500. I also have a fall back of the 300 f/2.8 on the D5. Should be lots of fun this fall.
I may add a 120-300 to use w the D500 for day games but this time I won’t be getting most of the glass I had the 1st time, I had too much redundancy and rarely used lenses
Yea early in the spring before the heat came on I got all pumped up to do some rodeo for the first time in years. You would have thought I was packing a sniper rifle. I had to be approved by Pro Rodeo before I could bring the camera on grounds..
I said this is a riding arena with 10 people..and none of them had anything but a phone.
Didn't matter, same story at another arena the next week
As Dave suggested...it would be interesting to play with an A9 and the new 400 from Sony....20FPS and a super-light weight 400/2.8 sounds pretty nice.
Edit: Sorry Randy, I didn't notice that you already have the D5. In that case I wouldn't go Sony either.
Edit: Sorry Randy, I didn't notice that you already have the D5. In that case I wouldn't go Sony either.
Last edited:
I too have been out of the game for a few years but still have all my old lenses. I am considering a comeback but it will be another season before I decide.
Randy, you often say you hate f4 and I am curious why. I don’t want to argue, just respectfully understand. You are an honored contributor and member that has shared great work with a hard line opinion that is your right but have you had much experience with a 600 for field sports?
I never shot much High School Soccer or Football after my kids graduated. When I did shoot under the lights it would usually be with a 400 f2.8 and a 200 f2. With that as a priority I agree with the 400 choice.
For Day or under professional or collegiate lighting my choice was the 600 on one pro Nikon body and the 200-400 on a second single digit D series Nikon, both f4. If I get back in the game I don’t think I could resist picking up the 180-400 f4E w/TC 1.4. It sounds like a beautiful lens. I was happy with the 200-400 when filling the frame but not as much when cropping significantly. Fortunately the two-body combo allowed me to fill the frame for near field action. Occasionally I would bring a third body with a 70-200, 24-70 or 14-24 depending on what special images I might be going for at an event.
I just don’t understand the disdain for f4. I pick the 600 f4 over my 400 f2.8 98% of the time. If it is for Bokeh, a 600mm f4 image at 30 yards is more compressed and has a more pleasing Bokeh in my eyes to the same image with a 400mm f2.8. at 30 yards.
The math just doesn’t bear out your insistence for f2.8. There are multiple variables to consider, aperture is only one. Equal or more important is focal length, the longer the lens, the more compressed the subject and the thinner the DoF. Filling the frame with your subject. Distance of background from subject is important as well but becomes less of a factor with longer lenses due to the greater image compression. There are any number of online DoF calculators that allow you to compare potential results for your type of shooting.
Granted night high school venues may require faster glass but for anything else, indulge yourself and do the comparison. I did and it wasn’t a contest between the 400 and 600.
Randy, you often say you hate f4 and I am curious why. I don’t want to argue, just respectfully understand. You are an honored contributor and member that has shared great work with a hard line opinion that is your right but have you had much experience with a 600 for field sports?
I never shot much High School Soccer or Football after my kids graduated. When I did shoot under the lights it would usually be with a 400 f2.8 and a 200 f2. With that as a priority I agree with the 400 choice.
For Day or under professional or collegiate lighting my choice was the 600 on one pro Nikon body and the 200-400 on a second single digit D series Nikon, both f4. If I get back in the game I don’t think I could resist picking up the 180-400 f4E w/TC 1.4. It sounds like a beautiful lens. I was happy with the 200-400 when filling the frame but not as much when cropping significantly. Fortunately the two-body combo allowed me to fill the frame for near field action. Occasionally I would bring a third body with a 70-200, 24-70 or 14-24 depending on what special images I might be going for at an event.
I just don’t understand the disdain for f4. I pick the 600 f4 over my 400 f2.8 98% of the time. If it is for Bokeh, a 600mm f4 image at 30 yards is more compressed and has a more pleasing Bokeh in my eyes to the same image with a 400mm f2.8. at 30 yards.
The math just doesn’t bear out your insistence for f2.8. There are multiple variables to consider, aperture is only one. Equal or more important is focal length, the longer the lens, the more compressed the subject and the thinner the DoF. Filling the frame with your subject. Distance of background from subject is important as well but becomes less of a factor with longer lenses due to the greater image compression. There are any number of online DoF calculators that allow you to compare potential results for your type of shooting.
Granted night high school venues may require faster glass but for anything else, indulge yourself and do the comparison. I did and it wasn’t a contest between the 400 and 600.
600 is way too long for me. I like to stay 20 yards in front of the offense. f/4 at 400mm doesn’t blur the BG enough for me but way more important is ISO. I only shoot high school sports and most stadiums require 6400 minimum, usually closer to 8k, I have to have f/2.8 and still settle on 1/500 many nights. The 400e on the D5 is my dream combo for shooting high school sports
Thanks for the reply.
As I mentioned, if your priority is high school night games f2.8 is helpful and I would make the same choice.
I was more curious of your dislike of f4.
Your HS requirement to shoot within the 20-yard line puts a crimp in your preference to shoot 20 yards in front of the offense. That is worse than NFL and NCAA where we could go to the 35.
I liked to often set up behind the line to get QB shots or defense. I loved the 200-400 because I could get a full frame shot even when they ran close to the sideline I was on. Not an option when you need 8000 ISO/500 SS/f2.8 although I would shoot 5000 ISO with a D4 without blinking and would go 6400 with my D5.
Not a great shot and a bit soft but it gives an example of the bokeh of f4 zoomed in to 200, too tight to even straighten the horizon, even when shooting cross field and not down field and the flexibility to still get the action close to your shooting position. The 600 has outstanding bokeh, the 200-400 acceptable and the 180-400 would be sweet for this kind of shot.
1/1000s f/4.0 at 200.0mm iso2500
As I mentioned, if your priority is high school night games f2.8 is helpful and I would make the same choice.
I was more curious of your dislike of f4.
Your HS requirement to shoot within the 20-yard line puts a crimp in your preference to shoot 20 yards in front of the offense. That is worse than NFL and NCAA where we could go to the 35.
I liked to often set up behind the line to get QB shots or defense. I loved the 200-400 because I could get a full frame shot even when they ran close to the sideline I was on. Not an option when you need 8000 ISO/500 SS/f2.8 although I would shoot 5000 ISO with a D4 without blinking and would go 6400 with my D5.
Not a great shot and a bit soft but it gives an example of the bokeh of f4 zoomed in to 200, too tight to even straighten the horizon, even when shooting cross field and not down field and the flexibility to still get the action close to your shooting position. The 600 has outstanding bokeh, the 200-400 acceptable and the 180-400 would be sweet for this kind of shot.
1/1000s f/4.0 at 200.0mm iso2500
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
My dislike for f/4 is for the sports I shoot not f/4 in general. I actually like f/4 for better DOF on a multi player shot. But I won’t pay the iso bill for that 1 stop difference.
I shoot a 300/4 and 500/4 for wildlife and I shoot wide open most of the time.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Last edited:
The 400 is a great lens and seems the best for you. I have an older version and still value it as well.
Still, field sports require reach and focal length impacts DOF. For example, if you are behind the end line and take a picture of a subject at the 20-yard line, a 600 at f4 would have a DOF of 1.61 feet (.8 in front, .81 behind) and a 400 at f2.8 would have a DOF of 2.58 feet (1.27 ft. in front and 1.31 ft behind). The image also becomes more compressed, adding to the bokeh effect.
The math confirms the DOF is less with longer focal lengths.
If you can fill the frame with a 400 at 2.8 great, but I want to get shots even further out and would switch to the 200-400 as action got to the goal line.
You do great work Randy. Good to see you back in the game.
1/3200s f/4.0 at 600.0mm iso250
Still, field sports require reach and focal length impacts DOF. For example, if you are behind the end line and take a picture of a subject at the 20-yard line, a 600 at f4 would have a DOF of 1.61 feet (.8 in front, .81 behind) and a 400 at f2.8 would have a DOF of 2.58 feet (1.27 ft. in front and 1.31 ft behind). The image also becomes more compressed, adding to the bokeh effect.
The math confirms the DOF is less with longer focal lengths.
If you can fill the frame with a 400 at 2.8 great, but I want to get shots even further out and would switch to the 200-400 as action got to the goal line.
You do great work Randy. Good to see you back in the game.
1/3200s f/4.0 at 600.0mm iso250
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
Similar threads
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemojiForum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/