equine photography help?

[maat]

If any of you are equine photographers out there, I'm in need of some help.
I can't seem to get really clear, sharp photos when the horses are in action.
the best i get is this,


but the quality i'm looking for is more like


and


Is there some magic setting, like aperture or f/stop that i'm just not getting?

I have a Nikon D60 with Nikkor 18-55mm and Nikkor 55-200mm lenses, if that makes any sort of a difference.

And thank you to anyone that can throw some tips my way; there just don't seem to be any places for equine photography help. :/

[RichardTaylor]

Without seeing the EXIF data on your pic;
maybe you are shooting at too slow a shutter speed (due to the subject not appearing sharp) to stop the action or prevent camera movement,
Or
It is a focussing problem.

Can you post the Exif info and advise if you were hand holding?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by maat

I have a Nikon D60 with Nikkor 18-55mm and Nikkor 55-200mm lenses, if that makes any sort of a difference....

Huge difference. Lenses are described by two sets of numbers: the focal length, and the maximum aperture. Your 18-55 is an f/3.5-5.6 lens, and the 55-200 is an f/4-f/5.6.

The maximum aperture is just what it says on the tin: it's the largest your aperture can be opened up to when you use that lens. In a low-light situation, if you're shooting without a flash, you need at LEAST an f/2.8 lens, and possibly something even wider to get the kind of shutter speeds that will a) eliminate camera shake from handholding, and b) freeze the action cleanly.

I'd recommend looking into fast prime lenses for this kind of shooting, except that if you want to go longer than 50mm--they're almost all AF, not AF-S, lenses and on a D60 that means manually focusing...

[jdepould]

Well the sample images are 5D2 @ 300mm, 1/250s, f/5.6 and ISO3200.

If I had to guess I'd say 100-300mm f/5.6L.

They're also lower and closer (probably credentialed), which makes a pretty big difference.

[inkista]

Ding! ding! ding! Winnah. Pro with a full-frame and L glass. The full-frame high-iso performance of the 5DMkII wouldn't need the wider aperture to grab more light quickly.

I'm too lens-obsessed.

The 100-300 f/5.6L is possible but unlikely, given that it's a very old discontinued lens, without either USM or IS. More likely it's the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS USM, the 300 f/4L IS USM, or the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (aka the paparazzi lens). It could be a non-L, but if someone's using a 5DMkII, the chances of L glass tend to go up.

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by inkista

The 100-300 f/5.6L is possible but unlikely, given that it's a very old discontinued lens, without either USM or IS. More likely it's the 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS USM, the 300 f/4L IS USM, or the 28-300 f/3.5-5.6L IS USM (aka the paparazzi lens). It could be a non-L, but if someone's using a 5DMkII, the chances of L glass tend to go up.

If it were me, I'd use the 100-400. I knew they had glass in that range, just wasn't sure what was current. 15 seconds on Google can only educate you so much.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by jdepould

If it were me, I'd use the 100-400. I knew they had glass in that range, just wasn't sure what was current. 15 seconds on Google can only educate you so much.

Heck, most Canon shooters don't even know the 100-300L exists. The last time I looked, the going price was around $300, vs. the 100-400L going for $1600 or so, so you never know--someone could've gotten a bargain.