I generally do portraits. However, my daughters are competing in gymnastics and I am trying to capture good images of their efforts. I have used my D90 with the recent 85 1.8G, and when they are in range, the results are very nice. I get some subject isolation and pleasant colors.
However, gymnastics is not often a convenient sport for spectators. It is spread out all over the place. I want to reach out a bit.
Two approaches occur to me. A longer lens would certainly do the trick, though speed is at a premium because the lighting is universally poor in these gyms. That makes the longer lens costly.
Or, I could get a used V1 with adaptor, and slap my 85mm lens on that. I end up with the much discussed smaller sensor and the huge crop factor.
I wonder which approach you would recommend. Thank you in advance for your response.
I'd definitely consider the V1 and the FT1 adapter. Just multiple by 2.7 for the range and you get the same aperture. I would say a 70-200 would be fantastic in that situation. The image will have a little less "quality" to them due to the smaller sensor but if properly exposed you wouldn't know the difference really. Also easier to get through security if you're having smaller lenses than really big ones.
Also don't discount the "Smart Photo Selector" shooting mode that shoots a burst of photos. I used it shooting a soccer game last week and the results were quite good...albeit in bright sunlight, 30-110mm lens, high shutter speed.
>I'd definitely consider the V1 and the FT1 adapter. Just >multiple by 2.7 for the range and you get the same aperture. I >would say a 70-200 would be fantastic in that situation. The >image will have a little less "quality" to them due >to the smaller sensor but if properly exposed you wouldn't >know the difference really. Also easier to get through >security if you're having smaller lenses than really big >ones.
Don't forget that compared to the D90 it is a multiplication of around 1.5 not 2.7 (only 2.7 compared to FX.
But, add an inexpensive 70-300 VR and the V1 becomes a great long lens camera.
#8. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 5 Thu 13-Sep-12 12:28 AM by gpoole
Farmington Hills, US
Actually 1/8X relative to DX.
You'll lose subject isolation compared to DX though.
Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Co-organizer of the Southern Michigan Chapter Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera. D4, D800e, D300, D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome) YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5 My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery
#12. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 11
New York, US
Quirks? None, really. It's probably my most-used lens. About the only complaint I ever hear or read here is that it is a bit big and heavy. It was part of my walk-aorund lens set for years, paired with the 24-70 (no lightweight, either!).
This year I acquired a 24-120 and a 70-300 for walk around use (one at a time). But for serious work, low light work, action work, I still reach for the 70-200. It simply cannot be beat.
Jon Kandel A New York City Nikonian and Team Member Please visit my website and critique the images!
#16. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 15
Rancho Cordova, US
Nice shot, Bucky.
I'm seriously contemplating a V1 (or probably going to be announced soon V2 based on recent price drops), and was wondering how this would work for action. So if you get any shots of the gymnist tumbling and jumping it would be great.
#18. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 17
>Thank you Anthony. > >The 30-100 lens is too slow to freeze action well. All of my >usable stills were taken when she was, well, still. I am going >to try a faster lens attached to the FT-1 adaptor. I'll post >an update.
Should that be qualified as too slow for indoor action? Outdoors on a sunny day with ISO200 you would be about 1/1600 at f/5.6. I agree, however, we do need some faster 1 System long lenses...please Nikon
#20. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 19 Tue 16-Oct-12 04:11 AM by KnightPhoto
The 70-200 might be more reach than you need and a little difficult ergonomics on the V1. It is a great lens though, and yes a used VR-1 should be fine since you'll only be using the central portions of the lens due to the 2.7 crop.
Have you tried the 85 f/1.8G? At 230mm FOV and f/1.8 it might be a decent choice.
AF-S with the FT-1 means though that you are going to have to pre-focus and then leave the focus alone which is fine for some gymnastics events but of course near useless for floor.
All in all this goes back to favouring your D90 and the 70-200 which then delivers AF-C
#22. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 20
All great observations Steve. It seems that I have a lot of great pieces that don't fit together very well for this particular process.
I tried my 85 mm 1.8 with the V1, but in in the video mode some stripes appear on the image (both for video and still). I could only fix it by going back to the basic setting, which precluded shutter priority, which meant that the stills were shot at something like 1/50 of a second. That won't freeze action.
I took some stills outside with the 85 and they were lovely. With a lot of light, this is a great combination. With limited light, not so much. Of course, on the D90 it is a dreamy lens.
This past weekend I did a combination. I shot video with the V1 and its zoom lens, and hung the D90 around my neck for stills (in between events). That worked better.
However, as I keep moaning, gym light is AWFUL. Even at 1.8, the D90 wanted to move up to 1600 ISO to shoot at 1/500 - 1/800 (where I can stop the action). Images out of my D90 at 1600 are usually pretty ugly with noise and smudges. That's why I like to cap the ISO range at 400.
So, it seems that to shoot in gyms with that great 70-200 zoom (which tops out at 2.8) I will need even more ISO. Perhaps zooming in closer to the subject will help. But I'm now worried that the zoom lens/camera combination will be thwarted by the D90 sensor.
#23. "RE: Shooting long" In response to Reply # 22
I forget if we discussed this in this thread, but for gymnastics the real solution is any of the FX cameras. I just sold my 34,000 actuation D700 for $1,500, so a used D700 get's you in the game for a more reasonable price these days. I paid $3159 back in the day.
My daughter is in Musical Theatre if you want to talk about bad light and fast action. I now have a D4. It rocks, killer cam of course. I earn a bit of income through Theatre to partially offset the costs. You could go that route, but semi-pro sales is a lot of work too, no bones about it!