Sat 15-Dec-12 09:33 PM | edited Sat 15-Dec-12 09:34 PM by Ferguson
>Take my advice: Never shoot with a 400/2.8, because if >you do the resulting case of NAS will be incurable.
You mean there's a cure otherwise?
I would feel a lot more draw toward it if I didn't have the 200-400. While F4, it's a lot more handheld-friendly and I doubt my technique is good enough to have the prime's additional sharpness and contrast really show up.
>> If he spent the whole game up there, chances are good >>he had a colleague shooting from floor level,
I hunted around a bit and found that the paper posted a gallery from his shoot. It's here:
I'm a bit suspicious of #14, but the rest to me look like from above, or maybe from the floor with a very long lens. I never saw him that evening with a short lens, though he probably had one in the bag.
If you want angle comparisons, see his shot #11 and look in this gallery at my shot #60, it's exactly the same event one from the floor (mine), one from above (the paper's pro, who is (I see now) Kinfay Moroti, who by the way was incredibly nice to this know-nothing amateur.
Also, look at his #10 and my #52. I *think* those are the same moment, and to me the from-above angle is much more emotive (though I think not having the FGCU player in the shot is not good, probably a downside of a prime vs. zoom).
But it does look like he shot the majority of the game from above. I know he was trying to get even higher at one point, but couldn't find a way on top of some closed/folded-up bleachers.
It was an interesting perspective. I don't think my 70-200 will have the reach to really try, and the 200-400 would be noisy as anything, but I may drag it in there next opportunity.
PS. I thought about linking in the photos from the paper, but wasn't sure how legit that was, and since they now have a paywall it might not even work. However it appears anyone can look at a few articles without payment, so no registration is required for the above link, at least at first. I have no connection to the paper.