@rbk35 - Looking good! I am not familiar with Photo Elements 10, but something else I do is try and adjust the black point so that I get a deep black somewhere in the image. In Lightroom this is done quickly with a slider. It is often an effective way to give images a bit more pop. ... You are going to make some parents very happy!

I think your getting the hang of it.

Well done Eric. That's what it's all about. Helping people.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/85968878@N06/7880822132/in/photostream
http://www.flickr.com/photos/85968878@N06/7880837256/in/photostream
Before and after editing. How do they look?

At night I would suggest taking some shots early with different ISOs to see what is usable and how high you need to go. Get it keyed in before hand so you don't have to mess with that when you are shooting. Good luck!

Thanks Eric for all the help. Not stepping on my toes, I posted the shots for suggestions. I am happy with the daylight shots I am getting and will continue to try to improve. Night games will be the tough ones with this lens.Good thing most of his games are during the day :)

@rbk35 - I think you are getting great images. In the event that you weren't already cropping, I tossed in the example...I hope I didn't step on your toes...That shot of yours has great expressions and tells a nice story. I think that the challenge is that the next step in lenses is a little pricey. The question is what you want from your photos. The 55-300 @ 300 is (I think) basically a f/5.6 lens. A faster lens would give you higher shutter speeds and better subject isolation, which might be good for this angle. On the other hand if you move to take fielding shots, f/5.6 is fine. For the money, the tcole1983's suggestion of the 300 f/4 makes a lot of sense. Its a sharp lens and will provide a better cropped image than the 55-300 IMHO. Having said that a lot of folks shoot baseball with the 70-200 and are quite happy with the results. With the 70-200 you get that nice low light capability and great isolation when you want it. Also, from my experience the 80-400 might really be a viable choice for baseball. For me the best shots almost always occur when I am anticipating the play and am already focused. Whereas for action shots my fastest focusing lenses are sometimes not fast enough (when I handle them, someone else might do better). So the 80-400 might be a reasonable way to get more reach, but won't really improve isolation. It's really a tough call. I think your shots are great, the question is which way would you like to see them go.

Here's a shot taken with the 24-70:

Nikon D3S, ISO 2500, f/2.8 @ 1/640s, Nikon 24-70 @24mm

Looks great Eric.I just posted a couple unedited shots just to show where i'm at. Any shots I get prints of I edit with Photo Elements 10. Just not as good as yours. Nice job.

Bland said:
Nice shots Eric and great advice!

+1. And it doesn't look like a shorter lens is going to help you out any. I personally would work with what you have and you have some room to crop like Eric showed. I really think the 300 F4 is the next step up and they run around $1100 used, but I love mine.

Nice shots Eric and great advice!

@rbk35 - I think you are doing really well and getting some great shots. I took your photo and quickly did the following:
Level
Crop
Sharpen
Increase saturation
Using Photoscape (a free application for the PC)
This was my result:

Here are a couple I took this summer using the 55-300 from approx. 220ft away.

@msmoto - I regularly lock AE/AF and shoot 11 fps. This works in those situation where I know what I want to capture like pitchers, batters, stolen bases etc. For a catch in the outfield or anything else that wasn't predicted I shoot at 10fps.

I think that for most sports the higher fps you can use, the easier it is. Both of the shots above were taken from a series, and in both cases the moment captured was very fleeting. With a high frame rate it's easier to get lucky... Having said that I'm still trying to get that photo of the bat bending as the ball hits it.

$600 for a mint condition 80-200 f2.8 is a very good deal. I think you would like it because it will give you shallow depth of field when you want it and very high shutter speeds when you want them and the glass is very sharp all the time.

Yes, I too have heard 80-400 is slow focusing and not good for sports for that reason and for its slower maximum f stop. I have opted not to get one for those reasons.

As to the loss of range using an 80-200 which becomes a 120-300 on the D7000, I agree. I used it for shooting high school basketball games last year with my D7000 (I had to sit in the top row of the bleachers to get correct zoom range coverage of the action) in combination with a old 35-70 f2.8 (52.5 to 105mm on a D7000)(I stood about where the three point line crosses the end of the court line). Often I would switch my lens each quarter or each half so I had about half a game on each lens. I would also sometimes use a 35mm f1.8, a 50mm f1.8 (both from the first three rows of the bleachers) and a Tokina 11-16 f2.8 zoom (from under the basket). I found the 35-70 and the 80-200 the most useful but that all depends upon where you are sitting relative to the action. I found zooms to be more useful than primes because the action kept moving from one side of the court to the other and a zoom gave you a better ability to frame the player with the ball more accurately. So I worked with one zoom standing at the three point line and another from the top row of the bleachers. Where you can sit (or stand) during your son's games will determine what zoom range works best for you. Look at the shots you took last year. How many were taken with the zoom set at 55mm to 120mm? How many were taken with the zoom set between 120mm and 300mm? That will tell you if an 80-200 (120-300mm) will give you too much zoom range for the conditions under which you shoot. I suspect you will find that a very large number of your photos were taken with your present zoom set beyond 120mm.

I am going to suggest, re reading the manual that came with the D7000 regarding the various focus areas, the adjustments regarding the "lock-on" time for the areas, etc., and see is this helps you to set up the camera and understand what and how it is working. This is actually something I do from time to time as the multitude of adjustments is so much to remember we can not always get it right.

Again, try doing some practice which does not count. Play with various settings. See what works for your particular style of shooting. We can all make suggestions, but only you can go out and do the work. And, if you really screw up, this means you are pretty much just like the rest of us. But, we try to learn from our errors and keep coming back.

...and thank you Eric....nice shots! How many FPS do you shoot?

I shoot a lot of baseball. I tend to shoot aperture priority because I find that the depth of field is critical...too shallow and it is hard to get the proper focus quick enough, but when DoF is too great, subject isolation isn't enough to separate the players from the background and the images can lose their impact. For pitchers and batters, I will shoot f/4 or f/5.6 as the focus can be setup in advance. F/4 or even below is great for action portraits of batters and the wider apertures are useful if you need to shoot through a chain link fence. For action shots on the field, I most often shoot at f/6.3. F/6.3 is also good for shots of batters where the crowd's reaction is desired. I find that in the afternoon, the field can have areas in both full sun and shadow, so I shoot Aperture priority instead of manual. I try to adjust the ISO to keep my shutter speed up above 1/1000s. At night under the lights, I shoot wide open (f/2.8 or f/4 depending on the lens) and let my good shot percentage go down.

Be sure to use a lens hood.

I try and predict the play and pre-focus accordingly. After batters and pitchers, steals are perhaps the easiest, as are plays at first. Fly balls to the outfield aren't too bad, line drives are tough.

I shoot single point AF, sometimes shifted, because otherwise (for me) the AF system seem to lock onto the wrong thing often enough to bother me. I do not usually use continuous AF.

I use a D4 and my favorite lens is the 200-400, although I will use the 70-200 VRII if I am in the stands. I always shoot continuous shutter.

I use a monopod for bigger lenses.

I always speak to the coaches and ask if I can shoot from the field. I will shoot on the 1st or 3rd base lines well off the field in foul territory and well behind the base. If I have not already met the head umpire, I will ask their permission. If there is a play nearby, I smash up against the fence...my lens is going to be too long for the shot anyway. Never turn your back on a ball, particularly in-between innings when the outfielders are playing catch....

Here are a couple of photos:

Nikon D4, ISO 400, f/6.3, 1/2000s, Nikon 200-400 @ 400mm

Nikon D4, ISO 800, f/6.3, 1/1250s, Nikon 200-400 @ 400mm

Only problem with the 80-200 is you lose range. Not sure how close you can get. That is an option though. I have heard (but never used) the 80-400 is slow focusing. Might not be that big of a deal if you are shooting someone pitching or hitting, but might be if they are going after the ball or running bases.

I've been looking at the 80-200. There is a used one in my area listed in mint condition for $600.Would be better for night games though there are not many. Also thought about renting the 80-400 for the extra reach during day games and see how it does.

There is another option to the 70-300. One can purchase an old (but still excellent optically) 80-200 f2.8 for under $1,000. On a D7000 the 80-200 becomes 120-300mm but remains a f2.8. The glass is very sharp and the f2.8 is very welcome, especially at night or indoors or to isolate the background into a blur for an active player portrait effect. Focus may be slower than the 70-300 because it uses the older screw type focus and it lacks VR. However, VR only really helps with stationary subjects which is not the subject you have in sports so you are really not losing anything by not having VR for sports photography.

On a budget the 70-300 VR is the only other option under a $1000 that will really do any better and I don't think it would really help you that much if you already have the 55-300. You don't necessarily have to shoot M...shoot A or S instead. M can be a bit overwhelming unless you have the time and knowledge or what you want to set everything at. If you have time before to try..maybe during practice you can try. If you want to spend over $1000 the 300 F4 is probably the next best and after that they increase in price exponentially.

Thanks for all the replies. Will be taking a lot of shots at my sons four day tournament this coming weekend so should get lots of practice.Took a lot over the summer just using sports mode and was pleased with the results but want to learn to use M mode.Also any thoughts on a lens upgrade. I want plenty of reach as I take a lot of shots from 200+ feet away.
Thanks again, great forum !!

msmoto said:
I guess I get a good shot every now and then.

This. When i go to an event, a lot of people ask me, did you get any good shots? and all I can say is, "We'll see"

I listen to folks tell me they looked at my shots and say the cars are too sharp, look like they are standing still. And, indeed, this is correct, at 1/800 second only the wheels are slightly blurred. But, most of the car owners absolutely love them. I shoot and experiment on every shot. My technique is always listening to the comments of others, making a decision as to the value of the information, then applying it as I see best. I guess I get a good shot every now and then.

Oh, ISO on the D4... probably 25,000 is OK, but if the shot needs it, 50,000 or 100,000.

Newfie said:
Bland:

It was just an opinion and what is wrong with disagreeing? "To each their own" is a good practice but not great for learning. I find my photography improves when my processes etc. are challenged. At the end of the day I can decide if my "settings" were better or that there is a better way.

Sorry if I offended you. Certainly wasn't my intention.

No problem and you didn't offend me. I just think it's a better teaching practice to give ones opinion without saying someone elses is wrong.

msmoto said:
But, Bland gets some of the best shots around so his suggestions are so one will get the "Sports Illustrated" shots.

Thanks msmoto! :) And I would say the same to you, your action shots are incredible!

I'm sure you will agree that it takes so many different ways in shooting a shot to get the results we are after. What works one day will not work the next, it's adapting to the envoirment in the day we shoot.

I shot the Ronnie Dunn concert on Friday in M mode, only because of what you have said about shooting in M mode. I was so pleased in the results, as I was able to adapt quickly to the changes surrounding me ........ thank you for the advice, you made me a believer! :)

Bland:

It was just an opinion and what is wrong with disagreeing? "To each their own" is a good practice but not great for learning. I find my photography improves when my processes etc. are challenged. At the end of the day I can decide if my "settings" were better or that there is a better way.

Sorry if I offended you. Certainly wasn't my intention.