[trumpyman]

Attachment 9146

Attachment 9147

Attachment 9148

Attachment 9149

Attachment 9150Hi. The poor k10d seems to cop a bagging from ppl who want to shoot sports.To slow to focus etc.Our footy season trial games started last weekend so i went to watch a game n try the Sigma DL 100-300mm lens on the k10d.I think with a better quality lens the image quality and focusing speed would be alot better but for what i used the results came out pretty good. I think lol.Out of 330 photos i only deleted approx 50 shots which i was happy with.Some were because of obstructions gettin in the way.This was my first game for the year so a bit rusty but last season i got some amazin pics,hopin for the same this yr.

---

Last edited by trumpyman; 03-12-2008 at 06:05 AM.

[drabina]

Nice pictures.

Did you use AF? If yes, was it responsive or you missed shots because of it? I am asking because I do not think I could take pictures like that with my Sigma 70-300mm if I were to use AF.

[trumpyman]

Hi. Yes i always use AF for my shots,to be honest ive never used manuel focusing.I usually pan with the subject n shoot when the time comes.I got alot of blurry shots at first but you get to know the camera and develope a technique that suits you.People buy camers n lenses and expect everything to happen but for sports and other photography trial n error and practise will improve your shots alot more than new equipment. thats just my opinion.You hear alot of ppl saying how you need cannon or nikon equipment to shoot sports i disagree i think Pentax can do a good job to.I bet alot of ppl on this forum have good results with Pentax for sports.I bought the lens for $60 on ebay so happy with results for what i paid. take care.

[creampuff]

trumpyman, very snappy pics.
Are they playing Aussie Rules? It looks like a tough sport.

[trumpyman]

Rugby league Its only the pre season when the real comp starts il get some good hard hitting action.

[KrisK10D]

They are some great shots Trumpy. Have you got an extender on there as well? I took some of a local cricket semi last weekend (K10D, 100-300 f4.5 and polarizer) and they were atrocious

[bt*ist]

Congrats on the shots - they're sharp, colourful and in focus: some on these forums would doubt such a thing would even be possible with a Pentax offering

Seriously though, well done. Great shots and here's hoping for a good season

[Lowell Goudge]

Great shots, but...

Why don't you tell us something we don't know already.

Any one who has used the camera knows what is possible, and, that there is no replacement for good technique. By panning your shots, and following the action the autofocus could take 10 times longer and still keep up wiht he action.

The demand for faster autofocus comes from people I think who think they should be able to randomly point at anything at all and have the shot within a microsecond. Nobody's technology is that good.

Somewhere back a few months is a similar thread great soprts shot taken with a manual lens, one shot only not a sequence, when people were demanding 10 FPS so they could catch the moment. Same thing applied there, knowing what you're doing counts.

ps, I really like the expression in the first shot, OUCH!

[squarerigger]

Very good shots. In the first shot, it looks like the mother of the fellow about to get the snot kicked out of him is looking from the sidelines with a look of horror.

[Canada_Rockies]

They are some great shots Trumpy. Have you got an extender on there as well? I took some of a local cricket semi last weekend (K10D, 100-300 f4.5 and polarizer) and they were atrocious

Take off the polarizer. You are losing about two whole stops of light because of it. That will allow you to double your shutter speed and close the aperture one stop. This will stop the action better with the shutter and give you more depth of field.

[Arpe]

I'm a Pentax "bagger" for the AF and fps slowness, but I too have got some good pictures of rugby using my istDs (which is even slower than your camera for focussing). But just because you can get good shots, doesn't mean that MAYBE you could have got more good ones, or MAYBE some even better ones.
eg.

[trumpyman]

Hey Arpe how u goin, Not to sure what to read into your post.All i was gettin at is some ppl blame there equipment when they should be lookin at technique instead.And im pretty impressed with the results from a $60 lens. Il post a shot taken at the full 300mm and the image quality stays nice n sharp where alot of other lenses would be softer.Like i said alot of ppl get good photos shooting sports using Pentax. I think u misunderstood i said with a better lens my pics mite have been better not that i was better. When we beat youse in the league n union then u can be upset.lol hey just kiddin. take careAttachment 9174

[KrisK10D]

Take off the polarizer. You are losing about two whole stops of light because of it. That will allow you to double your shutter speed and close the aperture one stop. This will stop the action better with the shutter and give you more depth of field.

Thanks Canada. I didn't leave it on the whole day. But my thinking was more along the lines of my 300 didn't bring the guys in as close as Trumpy's 300. I can only assume he used a teleconverter, which is why I asked.

[trumpyman]

sory Krisk,no i didnt use a converter,i move up n down the field with the players when possible,if its a distant shot i crop in closer. Im on the central coast mate good to see a Pentax user nearby.I got the 100-300mm after reading heaps of reviews tryin to decide between the 70-300 n 100-300mm the later had better form.Ive noticed it seems to be sharpest round f7 to f9 for these kind of shots play try that on yours. good luk

[digitaddict]

Shot take whit a k100D 50-200 da lens...