nick.iodice- "well, it is sharp when i get the photos so does it matter how i do it? nope. Im still shooting at 1/160 so its not like i am panning a ton: it captures that extra little bit of movement that if i kept the camera still, it wouldnt have gotten.
and im confused at how you take sports photos: i am under the assumption that it is natural to follow the player through the viewfinder (otherwise, it would make no sense). how can you take a sports photo (not golf, but something like soccer or basketball) WITHOUT panning with the player to keep them on your focus points?"
@nick.iodice- I'm not taking about blur from motion or shutter speeds. I never said you couldn't do it. I said it cant be sharp. Look up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion Circles of Confusion.f/1.8, as you know is a very shallow depth of field. Circles of Confusion is saying that something appears to be in focus, might really not be in focus. However if it is next to something that is out of focus, it appears sharp because it is the sharpest subject, however may not be in focus. So, with f/1.8 having very shallow focus, as someone is running with a basket ball or whatever, they might appear to be in focus, not not completely sharp. Now, I'm NOT saying your photos are not sharp, because I have never seen them. And I am not talking about motion blur at all, simply DoF. I don't know how you got that impression, but I follow my subjects with the auto focus points too. The only reason I wouldn't pan is for skiing or something. If I framed in my composition and wanted the skier to be within the composition. I'm not hating what so ever, I just want to figure out what going on.
thegoat- "Fugitive's total lack of imagination limits his abilty to take photos,
he needs a wide angle or tele to take skiing photos, and is totally unable to shoot sports under 1/1000.
why? because other people don't.
Don'tworry, if your able to your able to. Just because some one else lacksthe creativity to find a solution does not mean your not going to beable to."
@thegoat- 1. I never, ever said ANYTHING about using a wide or tele lens for skiing. kKid-Genius, the thread creator is buying a new camera, and wants a new lens for skiing. Ok, cool. Well I recommend a tele lens because (I believe) it would be very easy to take skiing photo because he wouldn't be to be right next to what he is taking pictures of. Since in skiing, he would rarely use f/1.8-f/3.5, when what not tape in zoom ring at 50mm on the kit lens? Sure f/1.8 is go for a lot of stuff, but remember what he said when he started the thread " But majority of my timne will be spent photographing in the snow." Therefore f/1.8 wouldn't be helpful.
Now back to the f/1.8 and creativity. Lets say, sure, he wants to use f/1.8 and take some awesome creative picture. Well I'm assuming he won't. I don't know, because I'm not kK-Genius. I know for me, when I first started learning on a film camera, about 7 years ago, I used a 70-200 and I absolutely love it. Now, I rarely use my 50mm f/1.8 when I ski. For the most part I use either my 28-135mm or 70-300mm. Therefore from my personal experience, I would recommend a telely lens.
Now, the address my "creativeness," fuck off. I go to one of the best fine art photography schools in the country. I know I'm creative, I don't give a fuck what you think.
There is my rant. I simplify want to get my point across.