On Apr 17, 2006, at 10:19 AM, Aaron Reynolds wrote:
Ball sports would require longer lenses and higher shutter
speeds ... thankfully, they bore me to tears so I never shoot them.
Ha! You just don't understand the rules.
Not entirely true ... I was tasked to cover countless dull football,
basketball and baseball games, never mind (ugh) tennis matches, when
I was on the photo staff in high school so I took the time to learn
the rules so as to judge the right moments in play to follow. But
they bored me then, and they bore me more now. The only game I find
more boring than those four is golf. Utter waste of time and money, imo.
"If it can't kill you, it ain't a sport." ]'-)
I'm always surprised at how much movement I catch in human beings
at 1/400 sec -- I wouldn't think that there would be that much, but
feet and hands (especially the feet of a player exploding out of
the batter's box) are frequently blurred. If I could get closer,
I'd love to try shorter lenses and lower shutter speeds, but
unfortunately there's a ton of foul territory at Rogers Centre and
no way to get any closer to the subjects without interfering with
the game. And they took away one of our better vantage points to
add a new row of luxury seating! *sigh*
Yes, hands and feet can move right along. Same with eyes and facial
expressions when doing people.
I only shoot the racing at the Isle of Man now, which lends me the
opportunity to get very very close to the action, so a 135-200mm lens
is often right on the verge of too tight. 300mm is too long in most
of my favorite locations.
Godfrey
