AFxxx and Sports?

G

GanEdenVideo

Carbonite Member
Can it be done? ha sit been done and is there any footage anywhere?

I guess a nice zoom lens would be the obvious thing.

Any ideas?
 
GanEdenVideo said:
Can it be done? ha sit been done and is there any footage anywhere?

I guess a nice zoom lens would be the obvious thing.

Any ideas?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't want to shoot sports with the AF-100. Maybe for artsy stuff but for highlights I would be pulling my hair out. Its not the camera but the lenses that are available to get the range and constant focus.

ENG cams are better or a HPX250. You should try it out and see for yourself just don't do it for a paid gig.
 
Erik Naso said:
I wouldn't want to shoot sports with the AF-100. Maybe for artsy stuff but for highlights I would be pulling my hair out. Its not the camera but the lenses that are available to get the range and constant focus.

ENG cams are better or a HPX250. You should try it out and see for yourself just don't do it for a paid gig.
Click to expand...

Well, it's the camera, too, kinda. The bigger sensor means less depth of field at any given subject size in the frame, so keeping fast moving subjects in focus is harder work, and you're not going to get it 100% of the time. Even with a 2/3" camera, this is one of the biggest challenges in sports shooting, and the AF100 makes it worse -- although perhaps more satisfying if you can nail focus consistently.

As you said, for "artsy stuff" -- which I would have written as "carefully planned shots, or high-ratio shooting where there's going to be extensive editing afterward and a chance to throw out the bad takes," the AF100 shines, as it does in many other similar situations. For the live, "gotta make every shot count" kind of event coverage, not so much.

- Greg
 
I shot some "color" footage for an ESPN "Iron Man". Used a 12-16mm, 17-55mm and 80-400mm zoom. No complaints from client. But it was "color" footage so I could take my time setting up the shots. I alternated between shoulder pod and tripod. Plus I had a PA handling the lens.
 
dhart1949 said:
I shot some "color" footage for an ESPN "Iron Man". Used a 12-16mm, 17-55mm and 80-400mm zoom. No complaints from client. But it was "color" footage so I could take my time setting up the shots. I alternated between shoulder pod and tripod. Plus I had a PA handling the lens.
Click to expand...
You got the best part of that gig.
 
Greg Smith said:
Well, it's the camera, too, kinda. The bigger sensor means less depth of field at any given subject size in the frame, so keeping fast moving subjects in focus is harder work, and you're not going to get it 100% of the time. Even with a 2/3" camera, this is one of the biggest challenges in sports shooting, and the AF100 makes it worse -- although perhaps more satisfying if you can nail focus consistently.

As you said, for "artsy stuff" -- which I would have written as "carefully planned shots, or high-ratio shooting where there's going to be extensive editing afterward and a chance to throw out the bad takes," the AF100 shines, as it does in many other similar situations. For the live, "gotta make every shot count" kind of event coverage, not so much.

- Greg
Click to expand...

I used to use a SDX900 for everything and loved that cameras 2/3 CCD's. I would love to have a 2.3 ENG cam but Ouch!
 
Did a spur-of-the-moment multi-cam, multi-game shoot for a youth football league a couple months ago, and used a HVX, Z1U, AF100, and GH2... HVX got the master shot, GH2 was to get overhead closeups (with a 100-300 lens), and the AF100 and Z1U ran the sidelines. Myself and the other qualified cameraman ran the AF100 and HVX; the other two cams were manned by league-supplied amateurs.

Granted, this was youth football and expectations were nowhere near ESPN levels, but the AF100 did OK. Not great, not comfortable to operate for the whole game, but OK. I had a cheap chicom shoulder rig that helped make it somewhat bearable, a better rig may have helped alleviate arm strain. I stuck with the 14-140, OIS on, and stayed right around F8 or smaller the whole day, increasing ISO up to 1250 as daylight diminished and lights came on. DOF was acceptably deep - consider that DOF at f8 is about equivalent to a 2/3" sensor at about f2.8 or so (double check my calcs if you like, I may be off), and the AF100 can get away with it because it's more sensitive and cleaner at high gain. Sports seemed to help the 14-140's zoom characteristics - that momentary loss of focus during a snap zoom was usually disguised by whatever the action happened to be. I don't do slow, smooth zooms on the sidelines, so it was in the right spot. Slow n smooth is for the upstairs master camera.

It was still not as easy to focus as something like the Z1, and a couple shots were blown as a result. I tested autofocus, and it may have worked OK, but I just have a hangup about using it while rolling.

On the flip side, during the post-game awards when everyone stepped to a nice unlit corner of the field for that ever so important moment, it was nice to open the AF up and actually get the shot. The Z1 shot mud. I also opened it up a few times during timeouts, huddles, and some other points to get some decently shallow "color" stuff.

Audio was a problem... the lack of any auto gain meant I either had to ride the levels the whole time or just send shotgun audio to two channels and pot one down in case of sideline-cheer-induced blowouts. I opted for the latter.

I'd use it again. I've reworked my rig, so it would be a good bit more comfortable, at least.

I recall during the NFL playoffs (Steelers Broncos, IIRC) spotting an AF100 on a steadicam setup, but no idea for whom that fellow was shooting or any other details about the rig. It was unmistakably an AF100, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top