Why I want a 1DIII

[AdamC]

So last night my son had a soccer game. Being just a small local soccer club, the lights for night games aren't great - which is to say they're fine for playing soccer, but not so great for shooting the games. In a vain attempt to get any sort of shutter speed from the trusty 400D, I had it at ISO 1600 and underexposed a whole two stops, while the 70-200/4 was wide open as always. Basically shooting at -2 and pushing it back in PP == red snowstorm :)

Seeing as the photos were rubbish anyway, I thought I might try something a bit different - I converted them all to B&W and left in the grainyness and excessive contrast, for a more 'arty' or, dare I say it, even 'edgy' look. What do you think? Does it work? Or is it just rubbish?

#1

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2719547922_17c61b3d99.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2719547922/)

#2:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3166/2719547356_d85e65fee7.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2719547356/)

#3:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3074/2718724137_fde9833eb0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2718724137/)

#4:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3276/2718723467_5a76073033.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2718723467/)

#5:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3130/2718722365_4b191f1c97.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2718722365/)

#6:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2100/2719544520_4591c5e346.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2719544520/)

#7, my first ever selective-colour picture:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3133/2719545548_facfe5097f.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/adamcurrey/2719545548/)

[cdifoto]

They look good to me this way. However, what you really need is a faster lens...f/4 is slow as for that kind of thing. A 1D III wouldn't hurt you but it wouldn't help you much if you use the same lens in those conditions. You could get away with a 40D and 70-200mm f/2.7 IS and be a head quite a bit...in both image quality and expense. You're better off getting an f/2.8 lens to expose ISO3200 properly than underexposing ISO1600 by two stops.

Of course if you can afford f/2.8 AND the 1D III you'd be golden.

[Ultimate CC]

i think you did a good job with what you had...i tool used to shoot with a 400d before i got my 1dmkIII, now i can't image how i shot without it...the high iso and unreal af system make sports so much easier...i don't miss nearly as much as i did with the 400d when 3fps limited some of the shots that i now can capture with the 10fps...why don't you look at a 1dmkii or something if you don't want to drop 3500 right now..., even the 40d is awesome for sports and has pretty darn good high iso...

[AdamC]

Thanks guys. 1DIII + 70-200/2.8 is my dream setup for soccer - I figure F/2.8 would be nicely complimented by ISO 3200 and good AF for low light stuff. Unfortunately my gear budget is $0 at the moment so I'm just practising "make the most of what you have." :)

Edit:

They look good to me this way. However, what you really need is a faster lens...f/4 is slow as for that kind of thing. A 1D III wouldn't hurt you but it wouldn't help you much if you use the same lens in those conditions. You could get away with a 40D and 70-200mm f/2.7 IS and be a head quite a bit...in both image quality and expense. You're better off getting an f/2.8 lens to expose ISO3200 properly than underexposing ISO1600 by two stops.

Of course if you can afford f/2.8 AND the 1D III you'd be golden.

Actually, that's interesting. A while back I was able to shoot most of another night game with a borrowed 300/2.8 on my 400D, and found it didn't really help at all. Granted the lighting at that field wasn't as good as the one last night, and you did suggest teaming it up with the 40D, but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.

[Uglyone]

I have the same problem, and went down this track.

40D + 135mm F/2 L, I even some time use it with a 1.4tc, makes it f/2.8 and 189mm.

At ISO 3200 I can get 1/320 shutter speed @f/2.8

Works a treat under your average football field lighting. And the 135mm focus very well.

[flickserve]

Actually, that's interesting. A while back I was able to shoot most of another night game with a borrowed 300/2.8 on my 400D, and found it didn't really help at all. Granted the lighting at that field wasn't as good as the one last night, and you did suggest teaming it up with the 40D, but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.That must be really bad light. Are those your usual conditions?

[Alexajlex]

Reality wise you can get ISO1600 underexposed by 2 stops (ISO6400) with the XTi and have minimal noise. Lighting of the subject plays a huge role in this.

[Paul S]

If you have a flash read on.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=375847

BTW the 40D with a 2.8 lens and flash would also serve you well.

[beezwax]

i dont see anything wrong with those pics other than being small

[AdamC]

I have the same problem, and went down this track.

40D + 135mm F/2 L, I even some time use it with a 1.4tc, makes it f/2.8 and 189mm.

At ISO 3200 I can get 1/320 shutter speed @f/2.8

Works a treat under your average football field lighting. And the 135mm focus very well.

hmm, actually that's not as silly as it sounds, once you throw the TC into the mix, although I'm not sure I'd like shooting soccer with a prime. A quick check says that dollar wise, that'd add up to more than the 70-200/2.8 non-IS though..


That must be really bad light. Are those your usual conditions?

Thank goodness no! He normally plays in the middle of the day on Saturdays, but due to weather canceling a couple of games, they've had a couple of midweek makeup games.


If you have a flash read on.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=375847

BTW the 40D with a 2.8 lens and flash would also serve you well.

Unfortunately no flash yet! I'm not sure where I stand in the flash-at-night-sports-games debate, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it.


i dont see anything wrong with those pics other than being small

Thanks! You can click the images for larger and EXIF.

[cstewart]

but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.

Yes, if you only have a camera that goes up to 1600 ISO. As suggested with a 3200 ISO camera and a 2.8 lens, you would have a situation much more suited to the light you had.

[bobbyz]

200mm is quite small for soccer, IMHO but then I use 500mm f4. 400mm f2.8 is the ideal soccer lens paired with 1 series.

[geharp]

Love the selective color....really cool

[GBRandy]

They look good to me this way. However, what you really need is a faster lens...f/4 is slow as for that kind of thing. A 1D III wouldn't hurt you but it wouldn't help you much if you use the same lens in those conditions. You could get away with a 40D and 70-200mm f/2.7 IS and be a head quite a bit...in both image quality and expense. You're better off getting an f/2.8 lens to expose ISO3200 properly than underexposing ISO1600 by two stops.

Of course if you can afford f/2.8 AND the 1D III you'd be golden.

+1 Good advice

[Zander Albertson]

When you get the $, sell the 70-200 4 and buy the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. That will give you one stop. Then buy the 40D, which goes to 3200 very cleanly relative to what you have now, and there you have your 2 stops. Looks like you have your shots down, your equipment is just failing you.

Keep practicing until you get the 70-200 2.8!

[basroil]

Also vote for faster lens over 1d. stick a 200 2.0IS on that baby and you'll be just fine. 135 also works, though you'd probably crop a bit more.

[eigga]

stick a 200 2.0IS on that baby

Love this forum.. he thinks a $4100 camera will do the job but instead gets advice to go for the $5200 lens also. No wonder Im broke :)

[BassBiggieD]

you could sell the f4 and buy a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for just a little bit more, and its a great lens. theres one f/s for $550 if im not mistaken in the B/S/T

[40Dude6aedyk]

You are not thinking big enough. You need to get better lights for the field. Forget about a better camera, better lens, and better flash which would only help you out. You need to get the clubs, the parents, and the community to spring for better lights. That way everyone would be helped out.

[rddelliott]

Listen to Zander

[basroil]

Love this forum.. he thinks a $4100 camera will do the job but instead gets advice to go for the $5200 lens also. No wonder Im broke :)

why do you think i suggested the 135? it's about 1/7th the price, i.e. less than even a 40d.;)

[AdamC]

When you get the $, sell the 70-200 4 and buy the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. That will give you one stop. Then buy the 40D, which goes to 3200 very cleanly relative to what you have now, and there you have your 2 stops. Looks like you have your shots down, your equipment is just failing you.

Keep practicing until you get the 70-200 2.8!

Thanks. The 70-200/2.8 has been on the wishlist for some time. I was going to ask "is it worth considering a 40D for sports over a 1D?" until I looked up the price.. I never realised 40Ds are so cheap (relatively.) I could definitely get a 40D and 70-200/2.8 for less than the price of a 1DIII body alone.

You mentioned buying the non-IS version here - are you saying that IS has no benefit for sports shooting?

[BassBiggieD]

Thanks guys. 1DIII + 70-200/2.8 is my dream setup for soccer - I figure F/2.8 would be nicely complimented by ISO 3200 and good AF for low light stuff. Unfortunately my gear budget is $0 at the moment so I'm just practising "make the most of what you have." :)

if you sell your 70-200 f4 a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 wouldnt cost you too much more and its a great lens

[AdamC]

Looking at the specs of the 40D, my first thought is that there isn't anything very compelling other than ISO 3200 - is the 40D really a worthwhile upgrade from the 400D? Context: I shoot lots of different types of things, more daytime soccer than anything else, nighttime soccer only rarely.

[BassBiggieD]

Looking at the specs of the 40D, my first thought is that there isn't anything very compelling other than ISO 3200 - is the 40D really a worthwhile upgrade from the 400D? Context: I shoot lots of different types of things, more daytime soccer than anything else, nighttime soccer only rarely.

better focusing for one
better feel/contruction
6.5fps

[Jim G]

Looking at the specs of the 40D, my first thought is that there isn't anything very compelling other than ISO 3200 - is the 40D really a worthwhile upgrade from the 400D? Context: I shoot lots of different types of things, more daytime soccer than anything else, nighttime soccer only rarely.

The AF system is notably better; faster, more accurate, more cross sensors for f/2.8 and faster lenses. FPS won't hurt, either.

I'd take a 40D+70-200 f/2.8 (Sigma would work fine) given your situation...

[vreeke]

lenses are making the pictures so buy the L series soon sir, 30D with l series will make better pictures like 1DIII

[manutd101]

Thanks. The 70-200/2.8 has been on the wishlist for some time. I was going to ask "is it worth considering a 40D for sports over a 1D?" until I looked up the price.. I never realised 40Ds are so cheap (relatively.) I could definitely get a 40D and 70-200/2.8 for less than the price of a 1DIII body alone.

You mentioned buying the non-IS version here - are you saying that IS has no benefit for sports shooting?
Not really, at least on a 70-200. Because if your shutter speed is below 1/500, camera shake won't be your main problem. Subject montion will. The only time IS comes in really handy is in really bad light, say in a locker room, for after the game portraits or detail images.

[JeffCanon]

get the the 40D

[AdamLewis]

Thanks guys. 1DIII + 70-200/2.8 is my dream setup for soccer - I figure F/2.8 would be nicely complimented by ISO 3200 and good AF for low light stuff. Unfortunately my gear budget is $0 at the moment so I'm just practising "make the most of what you have." :)

Edit:



Actually, that's interesting. A while back I was able to shoot most of another night game with a borrowed 300/2.8 on my 400D, and found it didn't really help at all. Granted the lighting at that field wasn't as good as the one last night, and you did suggest teaming it up with the 40D, but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.

I too would tell you to just get the 70-200 f/2.8 first and see how you like it. The MkIII, at the end of the day, is still just a camera. Its not magic. If the lighting is awful, the MkIII isnt going to make it any better. Youre gaining 1 stop of ISO by going to a MkIII. Thats the same gain youll see by going to f/2.8 from f/4 on the camera you have now.

[AdamC]

Not really, at least on a 70-200. Because if your shutter speed is below 1/500, camera shake won't be your main problem. Subject montion will. The only time IS comes in really handy is in really bad light, say in a locker room, for after the game portraits or detail images.

Fair enough, thanks. That'd save me $700. :)


Youre gaining 1 stop of ISO by going to a MkIII. Thats the same gain youll see by going to f/2.8 from f/4 on the camera you have now.

Good point!

[flickserve]

I didn't get time yesterday but today I intend to get the 70-200 2.8L IS version after selling on my nonIS version.

(I did buy my non IS second hand. It's been good and I won't have lost any cash on the deal even after using it for 2 years)

I'm going for IS because there's been plenty of times when IS could have helped in other circumstances (away from sports). e.g. school events and halls where the action is slower but the light even poorer!!

My camera is a 30D and at ISO1600, the colours are a bit muted, even when I shoot in RAW. I hope with the IS, I might be able to get nonaction shots at lower ISO.

[manutd101]

Fair enough, thanks. That'd save me $700. :)
Always a good thing :)

[AdamC]

there's been plenty of times when IS could have helped in other circumstances (away from sports). e.g. school events and halls where the action is slower but the light even poorer!!

Yeah very true, all else being equal it's better to have it than not have it. Unfortunately it comes at a huge premium - roughly $2000 v. $1300 where I live, for the 70-200/2.8 IS v. non-IS. When the time comes I'll have to weigh up whether it's worth the extra money for me.

[AdamLewis]

Yeah very true, all else being equal it's better to have it than not have it. Unfortunately it comes at a huge premium - roughly $2000 v. $1300 where I live, for the 70-200/2.8 IS v. non-IS. When the time comes I'll have to weigh up whether it's worth the extra money for me.

Ive sat on the fence for a long time about the IS-vs-Non with this lens for a long time. I got the IS version a couple years ago before I really did sports. Now that I do sports, its a feature I never "need". That being said, there are times I find myself using the IS for event coverage and sometimes there are times I use it just to keep the viewfinder steady.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0&Lens=242&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=103 will show that the Non-IS version has marginally better center sharpness while the IS version seems a little bit better from corner to corner. That doesnt mean it doesnt take sharp pictures though ;)


70-200 f/2.8 IS + 5D. Conversion from RAW through DPP with 0 sharpening and then USM in Photoshop. Now, this picture may be cheating a little because the files that come out of the 5D are literally the sharpest things Ive ever seen in my life (and thats from a 20D, 30D, 40D, and 1D MkIII). Still...It proves a point ;)

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa67/adamlewis88/Randomness/hoop%20it%20up/AL_Click_HoopItUp0002.jpg

[AdamC]

the Non-IS version has marginally better center sharpness while the IS version seems a little bit better from corner to corner.

Wow, that's really surprising. I assumed it was the exact same lens optically, only with the extra IS circuitry either present or not. Great photo!

As an aside, I noticed you're a sportsshooter member - is it hard to get into? Is it worth it?

[KIPAX]

Football at high iso with a mkIII

I go to really dark grounds.. heres some from last night (13th aug) ISO 6400 and shutter at 1/320 all f2.8 ... can you imagine how dark it is for those settings:) These where taken at various points around the ground.

Taken in JPG and only processing is my faveroute PS2s "dust/scratches" and resize etc. no noise reduction.


#1
http://www.kipax.com/mbgfx/is06400/iso6400_1.jpg

#2
http://www.kipax.com/mbgfx/is06400/iso6400_2.jpg

#3
http://www.kipax.com/mbgfx/is06400/iso6400_3.jpg

#4
http://www.kipax.com/mbgfx/is06400/iso6400_4.jpg

#5
http://www.kipax.com/mbgfx/is06400/iso6400_5.jpg

[flickserve]

Yeah very true, all else being equal it's better to have it than not have it. Unfortunately it comes at a huge premium - roughly $2000 v. $1300 where I live, for the 70-200/2.8 IS v. non-IS. When the time comes I'll have to weigh up whether it's worth the extra money for me.
It's come at a big premium for me as well. (approx 1000AUD:( ) I've agonised over the decision for 2 years and just bought the lens.