Your images back up your lens choices. I really like the shots of the player going into the net at 7:17 and the young fans going for the foul ball at 7:25. Great shots Billie.
I love my Nikon 24-70 Lens as well. So many people love prime lens, for good reason, however as you say the versatility and flexibility of the 24-70 can’t be beat. And like another viewer I loved seeing what shots you took with each lens. Very helpful as I always wondered what lens you were using when you posted those images. Another useful and entertaining video! Thank you!
Day games you'd want to be at a shutter speed of 1/1000th minimum with your lowest aperture f2.8 or equivalent and adjust your ISO accordingly or auto ISO
Wow great video. I'm a photography major at our local college, and got permission to shoot an upcoming game. I recently picked up a "like new" D4s and have been eager to run it outside of a studio setting. I have the 70-200E FL Nikon lens that I use for just about everything. My other camera is a D7100 with the 35mm 1.8 on it, which I will also bring on game day. I'm pretty excited about it. Hopefully I can pick up a 24-70 next semester. Again, thanks for the video
I have a Nikon D7500 and usually use my 70-300m lens. I also have a 18-55m lens, but I hardly ever use it. I am doing sports photography with it. I appreciate all of your advice. I will be getting some new lenses soon.
Last night I watched this video (the very first one of yours). This morning, I was asked to be the team photographer for a high school's Varsity & JV lacrosse teams. (Who knew that your videos were so powerful!) The first thing I did was order some extra batteries and the second was to subscribe. I assisted covering the JV team for the 2019 season and when 2020 was cancelled for Covid-19, I kept practicing with birds in flight. I'll be using a D500 with 70-200 2.8, sometimes 1.4 tc, and 300 PF for action on field. I was also asked to do their individual & team shots for the year book, which I've never done. I plan on using my Z6 with Z24-70 2.8 and Z85 1.8 with a tripod. School sports just re-opened here in NYC and I've done about 10 team practices in the past 2 week. I've gotten good feedback from the guys on the team who like the action shots and candid shots of them goofing around with their buddies. I plan on watching the rest of your videos ASAP (first game is this Saturday) but until then, please feel free to offer any advice/suggestions/etc. Thanks.
Thanks for watching, and great to hear you were asked to be their team photographer! I think you have the right idea - always a great mix of action, candid, and behind the scenes and you can't go wrong. Enjoy and good luck!
Another awesome video Billie! That indeed is the holy trinity right there which is perfect! However for my Canon setup right now I have the 300 2.8ii instead of the 400! I always said to myself “one day, one day” for the 300....so now that I finally grabbed it it’ll be “one day, one day” for the 400 2.8 i guess! 🤷🏻♂️😂👍🏻
Hey, just came across your channel, some really great info ... I did notice you had a pocket wizard on the D5 with your 400, do you have a remote setup somewhere (maybe out in center field)?
That's correct! Use remotes pretty regularly around the ballpark in various locations. There are a few other videos on remotes on my channel you may enjoy!
Hi Billie, I just started watching your channel, very informative! I'm a highschool sport photographer for four years now, primarily baseball with basketball, football, wrestling and volleyball thrown in. So I found your video on setting up remote and I'm in the process of doing that for an upcoming basketball game. I have the same Nikon gear D5, and pocket wizards etc I used for baseball, just looking for hints on where to mount it near the basket. gotta ask for permission first. I see you used a 400 from the pit. Why does it seem too close for me, can't possibly get full body shots of batters, pitchers. So I got a Nikon PF 300, much better and way lighter but I always seem to prefer my less expensive 80-400 for day games. I do have a second D500 with 24-70 or 70-200 and recently added a Z6 ( has a learning curve ) but nice with FTZ adapter. My question is with the 400 and infield shots, some are tight, do you just go with those tight shots? If I'm in first base dugout, I try to get a shot of pitcher throwing out a baserunner attempting to steal at first, with 400 I couldn't get it all, especially if the ball is bounced off the dirt low, just seems too tight. Actually the best lens, but heavy, is the 120-300 2.8 which I love. Any suggestions? Thanks again for sharing your experience. Ted in Sebastian,Fl.
Hi Ted. The 400 2.8 is definitely a "tight" lens. At the field at Fenway and most major league stadiums, the photo pits are far enough away that you can fit the pitcher or batter in full body. And during the times that they run closer to you, I either embrace how tight it is and shoot upper body, or quickly switch over to the 70-200. But it's great to have the reach of the 400 for plays across the infield and in the outfield. That 120-300 is supposed to be great though, so that sounds like the perfect option for a lot of what you are shooting. Perhaps think about shooting with a combo of two lenses if you have the bodies for it. That way you are covered at every focal length. Thanks for watching!
@@billieweiss7681 Thanks so much for your reply, I think I have been missing out on a lot of great shots by thinking they all must be full body, I like the term "embrace" so that is what I'm going to do. Yes I have two bodies I use for baseball, the D5 and a D500. I put a 70-200 on the D500 but the crop almost makes. it too tight from where I stand at the fence near first. . need another full frame camera, might try my Z6 with the 70-200 using the FTZ. Even with trying to anticipate the plays, I still miss my share of the great plays. Happy new year, look forward to seeing your work in 2021. Ted
Awesome video and I have nearly the same exact kit as you for my photojournalism work which includes some baseball, MLB and MILB. I have two D5 bodies, a 400mm f2.8E VR FL and 70-200mm FL just like you, however my third body and lens is a D4s and the newer 24-70mm f2.8E VR. The new 24-70mm is awesome, it's definitely sharper edge to edge and the AF is much faster. I rarely use my 24-70mm for baseball as I'm not a team photographer and do not cover much if any pregame stuff. Have you considered or have you already upgraded any of your bodies to the D6. Have you tested a D6 yet or not? Thanks love the videos, just subscribed, glad I found the channel.
Awesome, yeah that new 24-70 from Nikon is rock solid. Very sharp and a great versatile lens. We were hoping to upgrade to the D6 this year until covid slashed our budget :) Hoping to do a test to compare D6 vs. D5! Thanks for subscribing.
Love my 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200, still saving for 3 Nikon D5's, now they are pricy! 300mm is just a dream at the moment. Does the team finance your gear or do you own all your gear?
They are very pricey. There are lots of great cheaper alternatives to check out from Nikon, especially the new Z series cameras! Luckily the team finances all the gear.
I have to agree with your combo of lenses even though I don't shoot baseball (soccer, rugby, GAA). Thinking about getting a 16-35 for wide stadium photos but not sure if it is wide enough (don't want to go the fisheye route)
The 16-35 should be wide enough for most stadiums. I use that for overalls during NFL games at big stadiums and it gets almost the full stadium in shot!
Great video! I was wondering if some of your gear is supplied by the Sox or you own every piece? I’m glad I own a 24-70 and 70-200 to give me diversity but a 400 is just so dang expensive.
Have you ever used the Nikon 200-500 5.6? I can't afford a 400 at this point. I have a 300 2.8 but I use the 200-500 a lot more for day stuff. I really like the flexibility. It focuses a touch slow but for $1200 it can't be beat.
Yes! We've got that lens in our kit. It's a fantastic, versatile lens that can't be beat for the price. Very sharp, fast, and great for all sports situations. It even does pretty well at night. Highly recommend it!
@@billieweiss7681 I'm planning on trying to use it for a Pac 12 football night game next weekend. I have to shoot from the stands. Do you think the files would hold up to cropping using a D500? I also have a couple D5's. I calculate I will probably need to be at 10000 ISO to get a 1/1000 shutter.
@@leonneuschwander6133 I think the files would do just fine with the D5 and that lens. The D500 struggles more in low light in my experience. So if you have the D5's, I would rely on those!
Wondering your thoughts on if nikkor 120-300mm is enough "reach" vs 400mm 2.8. I can't afford both and I am struggling with a decision. The 180-400 f/4 is not an option as I need the extra stops of light for poorly lit high school football fields. I've narrowed it down to the versatility of the newer Nikon 120-300mm 2.8 at 10K vs. the traditional fixed focal length of 400mm prime at 11K. Obviously the image quality will be tremendous on both but I am looking for real life feedback on if you would sacrifice that extra 100mm for the versatility that the 120-300mm would provide. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for your time and tremendous shots.
Damn, tough decision!! To be honest, I think I would go for the versatility of the 120-300. Supposed to be an amazing lens at 2.8 all the way through. I haven't tried it yet. The 400 is just fantastic, but obviously limiting in it's fixed focal length. With the 120-300, you could always add an extender/converter or use a crop sensor body if you found yourself in a situation where you needed that extra push. It's also much smaller and more portable. The 400 2.8 is a beast - heavy and large!
@@billieweiss7681 I'll prob never shoot on a crop sensor as I like the D5 too much. I am leaning towards the 120-300 because if I shoot a day game I can throw the 1.4 tele on for extra reach if needed or I can use my nikkor 600mm f4 (I am a wildlife guy) but I have found that to be too much unless the action is midfield or longer. So I want 120-300 but everything I read says the 400 2.8 is THE lens for sports. So I guess my real question is will I miss out (regret not having) on that extra 100mm in exchange for the versatility
@@Jerseymikephoto I don't think you'll regret not having that extra 100mm for MOST situations you find yourself in! I think you are leaning toward the 120-300 for the right reasons!
For me I can only handle two cameras not talented enough for three😀. Question is I always have my 24-70 on me for the tighter shots but sometimes don’t know if I should take the 70-200 or the 100-400 for all the field shots. The 70 -200 is a 2.8 which is crisp and nice but the 400 has a 5.6 when I’m zoomed out and not always so crisp. Do you think it’s better to go the shorter lens and just crop or stay with that 100-400? I shoot at the high school level as well as for several youth leagues. Youth league I pretty much stay with the 70-200 but for high school can’t figure out what’s best....thoughts?
Great question and it's definitely a tough call! I have the same struggles sometimes 😀. My suggestion is go for the bigger lens for the high school level - although it's not as crisp, it goes a long way in giving cleaner backgrounds and more impactful pictures with a real punch to them. And with the ISO performance on most cameras being so great now, the higher aperture becomes less of a concern. It is definitely a less "safe" option than the 70-200, but the reward is bolder, more heroic sports action photos. For youth league, 70-200 all the way! Hope that helps - enjoy shooting!
Have you had any experience with the lower end super-tele lenses, like the Tamron or sigma 150-600, if so do you think they are viable options for people on a low budget? Thanks
For the price, they are superb lenses. I shoot most of my surf photography on the Sigma 150-600. I just couldn't justify shooting for hours on end in salt spray with a $12k lens. The 150-600's won't do the job under lights because of the f/5 max aperture, but for daytime shooting they do just fine :)
Good question! Yes, we set up each camera to have the same filing system, just with different camera numbers. So for example, our Nikon D5 bodies, we'll set the file names to D51_(imagenumber), D52_(imagenumber), etc. etc. Same thing with our D6, Z6II, etc. That was we can keep the sequential. Hope that makes sense!
@@billieweiss7681 I like it, but the idea was to shoot baseball using my media pass in Los Angeles. That's not happening, so I've been on the beach snapping at surfers. Not the same.
This question doesn't really have to do with gear, but I was wondering when you're taking sports pictures, what type of autofocus points are you using? I cant decide between zone or single point autofocus. Thank you!
It's a good question and always a little different depending on the situation. Typically for game action I use single point, as it lets me be really specific on what point in the frame I'm dialing in my focus. That being said, it does require a higher level of skill and precision to keep the subject in focus, since you're just narrowing in on a small focus point rather than a group of them. I'll switch to zone for things like big group photos or shots with many people in them. Hope that helps!
@@billieweiss7681 Thank you, I have been mainly shooting basketball, so would you still use single point for that? I'm used to using single for all of my regular photography but was wondering if I should still be using it for sports
Dude... i know visuals are your strongpoint but audio is more important. You could have recorded this with a grainy low res 90's camcorder on tape, then converted it and uploaded it. As long as you're using a nice microphone, there's no echo or reverb from the room it'll be fine. On the other hand, you could record with the nicest cinema camera, and use a crappy microphone and the video's unwatchable. Audio is very important to the viewer. It's a big reason why people pay thousands and thousands of dollars for foley artists.
