DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,
Just wondering what the best camera settings would be for kids playing and moving about. I've taken a few of my nephew's but sometimes an arm or head is blurred.
Should I be in shutter priority mode at around 1/400?

i guess it depends upon whether you want the action frozen or not... if you want to freeze it try iso 400 and set ap to around f4 in good light... you'll get very fast shutter speeds.

personally i like a little bit of blurring to show action and fun... try around f8 and 1/100 -1ev for a bit of fun.

cheers

Cheers bud! Will try these out.
Jase.

Hi Waspo
I think it really all depends on available light. Bright sunny days will be vastly different to the cloudy overcast days we're currently having here in Melbourne.

Just my preference, if speed or motion blur is a factor, I always stick to watching my shutter speeds. If you're looking for depth of field, say for portraits etc.., then aperture's what I look out for. Once you get a feel for what settings you can use in the available light at the time, you can always jump to full manual and vary both shutter & aperture (and ISO) to taste....

Focal length will also become a factor, especially if you're zooming in with your 70-210. You'll want to make sure you keep your shutter speeds up....

Something to think about anyway

Thanks for you input Dave. Yes, there are some shots where I just want a clean, clear photo. The kids look staight into the lens and appear stationary, but when reviewing the photo on screen, a hand or a leg is slightly blurred. I guess it could be a combination of things. Camera settings at the time, kid moving (the obvious one) and also me moving as well trying to get a nice angle and so forth. I'd mainly be using the kit lens, so there shouldn't be much of an issue in regards to speed. The light at the time was pretty poor, so this could have also been a factor. It's all new to me, so a bit more time and trying new things will definitely give me a better insight.
Cheers, Jase.

indeed. You wont get better practice than trying to keep up with kids running around the backyard.

The best thing is, practice doesn't cost you a cent....except for the electricity to power your PC.

Look forward to seeing your improving work

Dave, how do you like your Sigma lens? I've heard great things about them and seen some stunning pic's as well.
I think I've got a lens lust for this one!

I really like the Sigma APO II. From what I read when researching for a 70-300, the Sigma is directly comparible with the Nikon 70-300D ED lens, but it has Macro ability.

I would say straight out that it aint no 70-200 VR lens, but for the price, it's a steal....IMHO.

Below are some examples I've taken:







It takes a bit of getting used to as it doesn't perform well in low light (which none of the budget 70-300 lenses will do), unless you strap a SB800 onto the D70, then it's better (at close range anyway). It has the usual limitations of a "slow" lens, but it is light, reasonably built and I've had absolutely no complaints with it thus far.

If you're budget will only stretch to a few hundred dollars, I'd certainly advise you to consider this lens.

Oh, that's awesome!! Yes, I will get one soon! I'm still learning so better to learn with something a little less pricey before moving up. Do you mind if I ask where and how much you purchased yours or if you can recommend a place?
Cheers, Jase.

I purchased mine when I bought my D70 & Kit Lens (from Camera Action on Elizabeth St in the City).

From memory I got it for about $300 at the start of the year.

You could also try Vanbar, and of course Birdy....

Thanks Dave. Just noticed one on e-bay for $245 + $60 shipping. May just hit the city tomorrow and have a hunt in the camera shops.
Cheers, Jase.

Happy hunting. It may also be worth your while to look at the Nikon 70-300D ED Lens so you can compare them with your own eyes.

Best to look at all options before making your choice

Very nice pictures Dave!

Can you tell me the difference between your lens and a 70 - 300mm Nikon G type lens is, also what do you mean by 'Macro ability'.

I dont understand what makes a macro lens a macro lens compared with a normal zoom lens.

Jamie

Hi Jamie
the difference is, the Sigma is considered a "D" type lens, which has an aperture ring at the back of the lens (near where it connects to the camera). This is useful when using the lens on a film based camera - for when you shoot in full manual mode - to select your aperture.

The "G" type lenses are made for digital SLR's and do not have this aperture ring....as all dSLR's manipulate the aperture setting via controls on the body.

Hope that makes sense ??

Macro is the ability to photograph something at, or closer to, it's original size or scale.

For instance, if you zoom in on a flower for example from 10 feet away, you cannot completely fill the frame, so you move closer and closer. However, the lens has a "minimum focussing distance". Once you reach this, you cannot get any closer or you simply cannot focus.

A macro lens lets you get substantially closer, or shortens the "minimum focussing distance".

Of course, the macro mode on the Sigma works ok, but for a true macro lens, you'd want to start looking at the Nikkor 105mm, which is a fully-fledged macro lens (ie. 1:1 scale - the Sigma's best is 1:2).

Possibly not the best explanation, but it's getting hard to think this late on a Friday

Dave, I've read comparisons between the Sigma and Nikon lens and so far the Sigma wins hands downs for overall perfomance.

I don't know that there would be a great deal of difference between them (optically). You read alot of reviews and biases can often run prevalent.

I have seen some really great photos that were taken with the 70-300G lens, many on this site alone....and I've seen some poor shots taken with much better lenses.

I believe, and this is just my opinion, that all the 70-300's in the price range of the Nikon, Sigma & Tamrons are all very comparible. It will be the photographer that makes up the difference. They all have the same shortcomings (low performance and slow AF in low light). You cannot get away from that unless you start looking at f4 or f2.8 lenses...which take you well out of the price-range of these "budget lenses" - as I like to call them.

I don't think you'd be unhappy with the Sigma, but after a while, you'll want that 70-200 VR, just like the rest of us

Thanks for taking the time and clearing a few things up for me Dave.

I think i may just buy a proper macro lens and save the pennys for a 70 - 200mm VR as well.

Jamie

Dave, I think you're right about the budget lens. What prompted you to get the Sigma over the Nikon? I don't know about the 70-200 VR, I think I'm lusting over the 80-400 VR.

waspo wrote:Dave, I think you're right about the budget lens. What prompted you to get the Sigma over the Nikon? I don't know about the 70-200 VR, I think I'm lusting over the 80-400 VR.

Being a hobbyist, the fact the Sigma had macro ability swayed me into purchasing over the Nikon. As I mentioned, my research found that both lenses were very similar optically, so my choice came down to "do I want a macro ability or not" ?

In the end, I thought why not have it all. I've enjoyed tinkering around with macro, and it has only made me lust after a "real" macro lens, but at least I can feed the cravings from time to time, when I get the urge to shoot in macro.

The big difference between the 80-400 and the 70-200 is:

- 80-400 has aperture of 4.5 - 5.6 (starts at 4.5 @ 80mm & 5.6 @ 400mm)

- 70-200 has a constant minimum aperture of 2.8 throughout it's range - which will give you more options of shutter speeds at lower light levels (which is the biggest downfall of all the 70-300 lenses).

waspo wrote:Thanks Dave. Just noticed one on e-bay for $245 + $60 shipping. May just hit the city tomorrow and have a hunt in the camera shops.
Cheers, Jase.

Hi Jase
just noticed you've purchased the Sigma 70-300 APO II.

How you finding it so far ??? Look forward to seeing some photos from it....

Dave

Hi Dave,
Yes, the lens arrived Friday from HK via the E-bay purchase. I only just played with it last night testing out the macro function (on my foot ) and various settings with the camera. I like it so far. Nice and light too. Need to get out to the Zoo again and give it a try with the monopod I got yesterday.
Here's a quick pic of my dog @ 300mm, Centerweighted, JPG using the monopod for test.
Been trying different setup for AF-L and AE-L, being AF-L on the (AE-L/AF-L) button and AE-L on the shutter release button. Comes in handy when exposing for highlights such as my dogs legs.



May take to the Melbourne meet along with the 18-17mm.
You coming along, Dave?
Oh yeah, I've changed my mnd about the 70-200VR. Thats one sweet lens! Just need to win Tattslotto now!