PDA

View Full Version : Tennis Photography


So Disrespectful
Dec 20th, 2005, 10:21 AM
This is a question for the experts.

What X optical zoom would you recommend for photographing players during matches? At stadiums like Margaret Court Arena and Vodafone arena, spectators are quite far from the action, and I plan to take some decent photos at next year's open.

Thanks :D

Mike_T
Dec 20th, 2005, 10:42 AM
Iím not qualified to answer, except to say Iíve heard that powerful telescopic lenses, arenít allowed to be used by Joe Public, at certain venues.

suzie
Dec 20th, 2005, 11:00 AM
Not being an expert, here's my experience: unless you can get seats closer to the court, the zoom can't "fix" the distance... but I've never been to any of the stadiums you mentionned. I use a 70-300mm that allows nice shots like these at Philippe Chartrier's (RG) but, as I told, my seats weren't that far from the court. ;)

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a132/black_chatte/DSC_0408_amelie18.jpg

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a132/black_chatte/DSC_0507_ameliemary.jpg

And Mike T is right, I believe in Australia you're not allowed to use more than 200mm.

So Disrespectful
Dec 20th, 2005, 11:20 AM
I was actually meaning front row seats. At these stadiums, front row can be quite a distance is all. My camera only allows 3X optical zoom (39-117mm 35mm equivalent), that is why I am considering purchasing a newer camera, possible a DSLR.

Your photos are absolutely beautiful suzie. :yeah:

PamShriverRockz
Dec 20th, 2005, 12:51 PM
I was actually meaning front row seats. At these stadiums, front row can be quite a distance is all. My camera only allows 3X optical zoom (39-117mm 35mm equivalent), that is why I am considering purchasing a newer camera, possible a DSLR.

Your photos are absolutely beautiful suzie. :yeah:

You'll get best results with a DSLR or at least a high quality compact that allows fast shutter speed control. But the compacts obviously don't allow you to interchange lenses.
I use the Nikon D70 with only a 70mm lens at Wimbledon and got some great photos but I was very close to the action.

LostGlory
Dec 20th, 2005, 01:13 PM
You are not allowed to take the professional SLRs into grounds...

I use 36-432 mm 12X OPTICAL ZOOM 3X DIGITAL ZOOM

compact and you can take it in with you....

LostGlory
Dec 20th, 2005, 01:17 PM
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dsc_h1-review/index.shtml

Check this one out, it is cheap, it is not professional and the results are great....

PamShriverRockz
Dec 20th, 2005, 01:27 PM
You are not allowed to take the professional SLRs into grounds...

:eek: That's annoying :o Why?

Shooter
Dec 20th, 2005, 05:28 PM
What X optical zoom would you recommend for photographing players during matches? You need at least 300mm. Many of the larger venues won't let you bring in lenses this large unless you have a media credential. They are getting stricter on camera policies as time goes on. For example, some digital cameras are equipped with built-in zoom lenses that can go to beyond 300mm. These lenses aren't really that large. They are not those huge, white, Canon, lenses the pros shoot with. The venues in Los Angeles (Staples Center, Home Depot Center) are on the lookout for digitals with these built-in zooms. They won't let you bring in cameras with lenses more than 3.5 inches long!!! That rules out a LOT of cameras. I guess this is a way to protect the pro photographers.

A_S
Dec 20th, 2005, 05:58 PM
I think thats rediculous, why should they ban anyone with a decent camera? I am glad that it hasnt got that far over this side of the pond....

i shoot with a Canon EOS 20D, the 70-200L (F4 - remember not to overlook the apature..) and 1.4x Teleconverter. If you are looking for an SLR setup, i couldnt recomend it highly enough, of course its a fairly expensive (comparitivly to a compact) option, but the results are so much better and the control is far greater.

At wimbledon i took some nice shots on centre court from a fair distance (Behind the baseline on the oposite side of the court). I was quite pleased with them, they were shot on middle saturday, and anyone that went that day will tell you there was NO light whatsoever!

However, outside courts are much better for photography as you can actually move around and shoot the angles that you want you arent restricted to your seat and can move about freely, also you are a lot closer!

http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/albums/album99/fed1.jpg

http://www.farzadsf1gallery.com/albums/album99/fed2.jpg

PamShriverRockz
Dec 20th, 2005, 06:36 PM
Nice pics A_S what ISO did you use?

A_S
Dec 20th, 2005, 06:44 PM
Thanks, Beleive it or not they were all on ISO-800, it was a horid day, hehe. You can see the rest of the data in the photos if you are interested, but from what i can remember they were about 1/500-1/800 of a second, on F5.6 (the max apature with the Teleconverter)

Mike_T
Dec 20th, 2005, 07:28 PM
I think thats rediculous, why should they ban anyone with a decent camera? I am glad that it hasnt got that far over this side of the pond....
Not so ridiculous. Decent cameras take the best pictures. Best pictures is what the media need, to sell newspapers and advertising etc. It makes economic sense to charge pro photographers, for profiteering from the organisers tournament. Obviously you canít then allow others, to potentially do the same from public areas, for no levy. Even if you have no intention of selling photos, you can still upload to sites like this, and that then has the potential to compromise the value of the pros photos.

matija-seles
Dec 20th, 2005, 07:31 PM
I would invest my money into some Canon 'consumer' dSLR. EOS 350D seems the most logical answer since it has the same sensor as 20D and photo quality has been proved to be at the same level (this is not my opinion, check out various reviews at the net). I would think you are allowed to bring it into the AO grounds as this is a non-pro camera. Here are a few bad samples (because of a 15 year old lense):

http://www.ana-ivanovic.net/gallery/albums/Beograd/Avala014.jpg

http://www.ana-ivanovic.net/gallery/albums/Beograd/Avala048.jpg

A_S
Dec 20th, 2005, 07:42 PM
Not so ridiculous. Decent cameras take the best pictures. Best pictures is what the media need, to sell newspapers and advertising etc. It makes economic sense to charge pro photographers, for profiteering from the organisers tournament. Obviously you canít then allow others, to potentially do the same from public areas, for no levy. Even if you have no intention of selling photos, you can still upload to sites like this, and that then has the potential to compromise the value of the pros photos.


Then how is one who hopes to make a career out of photography meant to get a foot on the ladder? If you are to do so you need to practice and get photos to become noticed/build up a portfolio if you ban the cameras someone can do neither.

Anyway from what i know if you were a pro you need a publication or source of accreditation, I don't know what the issue on being charged for that access is, i was under the impression that accreditation was not at a cost, Certainly I KNOW that is the case in other sports, i shoot a lot of motorsport, and its a bloody competitive market, but the public are not banned from using cameras or big lenses its fair game that if someone takes a photo (taking into account copyright issues) that they should be able to sell it, or whatever.

Shooter
Dec 20th, 2005, 11:30 PM
Then how is one who hopes to make a career out of photography meant to get a foot on the ladder? You are supposed to work your way up by shooting local events (i.e. no pay) for small, local, newpapers, newsletters, etc. You build up a portfolio, some experience, and get hired by larger newspapers. Somewhere along the way you are at a level where you can get media credentials.

Shooter
Dec 20th, 2005, 11:37 PM
I shoot with a Canon EOS 20D, the 70-200L (F4 - remember not to overlook the apature..) and 1.4x Teleconverter. Those are nice pics. I'm considering getting a setup similar to yours. To clarify for other readers, your 200mm lens becomes a 260mm when put on a Canon digital SLR. Then multiply by 1.4 for the teleconverter and you are now up to the equivalent of a 364mm lens (at full zoom). As I said below, you need at least 300mm to take decent tennis pics.

I'm curious about Wimbledon's camera policy. Apparently they are o.k. with you bringing in a fairly large, conspicuous (i.e. white), Canon zoom lens?

wally1
Dec 20th, 2005, 11:51 PM
I'm curious about Wimbledon's camera policy. Apparently they are o.k. with you bringing in a fairly large, conspicuous (i.e. white), Canon zoom lens?

This is all the Wimby website says about cameras:-

Photography
The use of photographic equipment must not inconvenience any other person in the grounds. Still photographs, film, videotape or other audio-visual material recorded within the grounds may not be sold or used commercially in any way whatsoever unless authorised by the AELTC and may be confiscated by the Club if such sale or commercial use is suspected.

And in the FAQ section:-

Can I bring my camera to Wimbledon?
Photographs (still or motion) taken inside the grounds may only be used for private, not commercial, purposes. There is no flash photography while play is in progress - cameras with automatic flashes should not be used unless the flash can be switched off. Video recording is permitted so long as it does not interfere with competitors or anyone else. It may also only be used for private and not commercial purposes.

After going to Wimby for years I remember being very surprised at the Oz Open that they didn't let people use video cameras..

Dan23
Dec 21st, 2005, 01:03 AM
I took these indoors with a 6.3-63mm built in zoom from a reasonable distance....didnt do a bad job for a reasonably cheap camera :cool:

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/833/nastya05010le.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/3051/dani05011zq.jpg

http://img505.imageshack.us/img505/4757/arg05013lq.jpg

Shooter
Dec 21st, 2005, 01:32 AM
Those are nice pics. I'm considering getting a setup similar to yours. To clarify for other readers, your 200mm lens becomes a 260mm when put on a Canon digital SLR. Then multiply by 1.4 for the teleconverter and you are now up to the equivalent of a 364mm lens (at full zoom). As I said below, you need at least 300mm to take decent tennis pics.Oops - I stand corrected (by paulhc). A 200mm lens on a Canon 20D becomes 320mm (the focal length magnifier is 1.6). On top of that, multiply by 1.4 for the teleconverter and you arrive at a 35mm equivalent focal length of 448mm. That's good enough to get some great tennis pics.

Shooter
Dec 21st, 2005, 01:37 AM
I took these indoors with a 6.3-63mm built in zoom from a reasonable distance....didnt do a bad job for a reasonably cheap camera. Those are nice pictures. In particular, I like the color quality. What camera is it? It may be cheap, but it looks like you had expensive seats. What row were you in? You had to be very close to the court to get those shots. I take it you cropped these images to get a zoom effect?

Dan23
Dec 21st, 2005, 01:52 AM
Those are nice pictures. In particular, I like the color quality. What camera is it? It may be cheap, but it looks like you had expensive seats. What row were you in? You had to be very close to the court to get those shots. I take it you cropped these images to get a zoom effect?
Thanks Shooter. The camera is an Olympus C740. The pics are cropped and resized a little smaller. The pic of Daniela was taken from the front row and only about 3m away from the sideline of the court, the other 2 were from about the 15th row and elevated, maybe 20m away.

So Disrespectful
Dec 21st, 2005, 02:31 AM
Should an added 2.6x telephoto conversion lense give me enough zoom?

Shooter
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:28 AM
I took these indoors with a 6.3-63mm built in zoom from a reasonable distance....didnt do a bad job for a reasonably cheap camera I just looked up your camera on DPReview. That model was very popular. It is nicknamed the 'UZI'. I also shoot with an Olympus (E100rs). The zoom range of your camera when converted to equivalent 35mm units, is 38mm to 380mm. That makes more sense to me. You need at least 300mm to take decent closeups of tennis players in action.

DutchieGirl
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:36 AM
I just looked up your camera on DPReview. That model was very popular. It is nicknamed the 'UZI'. I also shoot with an Olympus (E100rs). The zoom range of your camera when converted to equivalent 35mm units, is 38mm to 380mm. That makes more sense to me. You need at least 300mm to take decent closeups of tennis players in action.

:lol: Yeah...which is why I'm pissed off with the AO people! ;) We'll see how my smaller lens goes thisy ear - hopefully I can get good seats on the outisde courts! ;)

brunof
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:38 AM
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a132/black_chatte/DSC_0507_ameliemary.jpg

Almost looks like Mary is going to sock out Amelie. :D:lol:

So Disrespectful
Dec 21st, 2005, 09:45 AM
OK. Thanks guys. By the sound of things, a DSLR isn't really a wise choice. I have, however, found a compromise. A Fuji Finepix S5600- (S5200 in the USA) It is a compact point-and-shoot camera that has an ultra zoom lense (10X optical, 5.4X digital= 54X TOTAL ZOOM!). I plan to sell my Cybershot (~ 2 months old) and purchase the Fuji.

I look foward to sharing my photos next year :D

matija-seles
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:02 PM
OK. Thanks guys. By the sound of things, a DSLR isn't really a wise choice. I have, however, found a compromise. A Fuji Finepix S5600- (S5200 in the USA) It is a compact point-and-shoot camera that has an ultra zoom lense (10X optical, 5.4X digital= 54X TOTAL ZOOM!). I plan to sell my Cybershot (~ 2 months old) and purchase the Fuji.

I look foward to sharing my photos next year :D

I can only ASSURE you one thing. you are gonna regret not going wth dslr.:o

Shooter
Dec 21st, 2005, 05:53 PM
OK. Thanks guys. By the sound of things, a DSLR isn't really a wise choice. I have, however, found a compromise. A Fuji Finepix S5600- (S5200 in the USA) It is a compact point-and-shoot camera that has an ultra zoom lense (10X optical, 5.4X digital= 54X TOTAL ZOOM!). I plan to sell my Cybershot (~ 2 months old) and purchase the Fuji.

I look foward to sharing my photos next year :D It's a good choice if you're not going with a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex). It has a 38 to 380mm optical zoom, which is what you need for action tennis shots. Don't pay any attention to digital zoom. It does not add to the quality of your pictures. Digital zoom is just like taking a picture into Photoshop and making it larger. It gets larger but also blurrier at the same time. Optical zoom is what to pay attention to, and the S5200 has a 10x, which is good. This camera goes for around $360. To get a DSLR would be more like a $1000, NOT including lenses. So you are saving at least $1000 by not going with a DLSR. Also, you will probably be able to bring the Fuji into more events, because it doesn't look as professional as a DSLR.

Good luck with that. I look forward to seeing your pictures.

Paule22
Dec 21st, 2005, 06:27 PM
I love my DSLR. I use the same lens as A_S and I'm quite happy with it. It's maybe a bit to dark for Indoors, but you have a chance with it, to shoot some nice indoor shots, which is not possible with a normal digital camera.

The problem with these high optical zoom lenses as 10x-12x is, that you need maybe a tripod, so that you can made some sharp pictures, because you will get some problems with stay calm while shooting them.

You have to ask yourself, is it just Australien Open, or is it Tennis 5-10 times(or even more) a year and the love for photography. That should let you decide what camera you need and how much to spent.

If they would ban Cameras here in Europe at tournaments, then I would get very angry and it would mean much more stress and much less fun in here, and tennis becomes more and more unattractive. You can destroy everything, but Tennis is an easy one.

PamShriverRockz
Dec 21st, 2005, 07:35 PM
Thanks, Beleive it or not they were all on ISO-800, it was a horid day, hehe. You can see the rest of the data in the photos if you are interested, but from what i can remember they were about 1/500-1/800 of a second, on F5.6 (the max apature with the Teleconverter)

ISO 800...! I think I used about 1000 on my Wimbledon pics ;) Well they're very nice :) I need a faster and better lens for sports photos, but I can't afford it right now.

I've heard that Canon SLRs are better for sports photography compared to Nikon (which are favoured more with documentary/photo journalism). I've always shot with Nikon personally...

Someone asked about Wimbledon rules about cameras...at the moment you can go into the grounds with a DSLR and a big lens no problem. There is probably a limit to the size of lens, not sure what it is but it's likely to be one 300mm plus?

A_S
Dec 21st, 2005, 11:10 PM
I wouldnt go with a fuji S5xxx series, from what i know, its just an upgraded S5000 which is really aging now.... I would go for the panasonic lumax/lumux (or similar, i forget the name) range - they are good and they have a built in Image stabiliser (though i doubt its much good on sports, never tried it so i don't know)

As for the aformentioned Olympus C740uz --> Brilliant camera, I use the C750uz as my primary compact camera which is the step up in that range, its a brilliant little though, but focussing can be hard at times (compared to the minolta z3) which my mate uses.

So Disrespectful
Dec 22nd, 2005, 01:53 AM
The problem with these high optical zoom lenses as 10x-12x is, that you need maybe a tripod, so that you can made some sharp pictures, because you will get some problems with stay calm while shooting them.


I have been reading up on the S5200, and it includes an anti-blur mode which increases the shutter speed to prevent blur on action shots. I can try to minimize my use of the zoom (anything less than 6x should be fine).

I really don't have the money for a Panasonic Lumix, so if anyone could recommend me another camera within the $300-400 bracket, I'll re-consider my options.

So Disrespectful
Dec 23rd, 2005, 04:51 AM
bump

A_S
Dec 23rd, 2005, 10:42 AM
Have a look at the minolta Z range, i am not sure on the price but the Z2 and Z3 are really nice little cameras.

So Disrespectful
Dec 23rd, 2005, 10:56 AM
I looked up the Z3, and apparently it has horrible out of camera image quality. The Z2 seems to be quite a nice little camera, but it's hard to tell how much technology has progressed since it was released.