Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
Thread started 26 Feb 2016 (Friday) 07:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

New Body for Hockey (very high ISO)

 
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,984 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4052
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Mar 19, 2016 19:48 as a reply to  @ post 17941022 |  #46

My best attempt at the 16000 shot, but as I was unable to shoot to the right due to the shutter speeds, I have a bit too much noise to really make this image work.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
neacail
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,188 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 437
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
     
Mar 19, 2016 20:02 |  #47

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17941189 (external link)
My best attempt at the 16000 shot, but as I was unable to shoot to the right due to the shutter speeds, I have a bit too much noise to really make this image work.

I think I can make out her individual eyelashes and I can clearly make out the ridge on the ball where the black lines meet the orange.

Despite the noise, there is a lot of detail in this image. If I had taken this photograph, I would deliver it. It meets the basic criteria that I want to see in the photographs I deliver with regards to exposure and white balance, focus, and interest. I might apologize for the amount of noise. I'm not sure.


Shelley
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,984 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4052
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed.
     
Mar 19, 2016 20:41 |  #48

It is just a hard ISO to clean up especially when shot centered or to the left, but thank you! :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Supersteve911
Senior Member
613 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2010
Location: MN
     
Mar 27, 2016 06:28 |  #49

I had a 7D, bought a 5DIII and really liked that for shooting hockey. Yea it didn't have a fast fps but it was great for low lighting. then the 7DII came out and I sold the 5dIII and got that. I am very unimpressed with it. I shoot with a 70-200II IS. I am getting ready to unload the 7dII and go back to the 5dIII. Where I shoot hockey is High School arenas that are like bat caves.


5D III | 24-105 | 85 1.8 | 70-200 II 2.8 | 2 430 EX II's | 580 EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeDee
Senior Member
Avatar
583 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 219
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Boston - MetroWest
     
Mar 31, 2016 14:59 |  #50

This is a very interesting discussion for me. I shoot hockey as well with a 70D and both a Sigma 120-300 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 ver I. I don't usually go above ISO 1600 and use LR for processing. I feel my images are OK but I sometimes need to go above 1600 and the results are unacceptable to me noise-wise. I'm waiting to see how the 80D looks with high ISO and was considering that or the 7D2. Maybe the 5D III would be better or do I just need to work on my noise reduction techniques?


5D III | 80D | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM | Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM | Ʃ 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM C | Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 | Metz 50 AF-1 | Yongnuo YN 560 III/IV | Flashpoint AD360 | The Rest of My Gear | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
neacail
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,188 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 437
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
     
Mar 31, 2016 15:46 |  #51

MikeDee wrote in post #17956099 (external link)
This is a very interesting discussion for me. I shoot hockey as well with a 70D and both a Sigma 120-300 2.8 and a 70-200 2.8 ver I. I don't usually go above ISO 1600 and use LR for processing. I feel my images are OK but I sometimes need to go above 1600 and the results are unacceptable to me noise-wise. I'm waiting to see how the 80D looks with high ISO and was considering that or the 7D2. Maybe the 5D III would be better or do I just need to work on my noise reduction techniques?

Slight overexposure while shooting (as far to the right as possible, without losing any important highlights) and good post production techniques should hopefully make 3200 very useable for you on the 70D. :) I found that 6400 was pushing it too far with the 70D.

I'd work on perfecting technique before investing in a new body. I suspect, if higher than 1600 doesn't work for you, that technique can be improved. That technique will carry over to the new body, and will continue to be of use to you.


Shelley
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeDee
Senior Member
Avatar
583 posts
Gallery: 34 photos
Likes: 219
Joined Apr 2011
Location: Boston - MetroWest
     
Apr 01, 2016 09:12 as a reply to  @ neacail's post |  #52

Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the advice. Now I need to research noise handling techniques. Is a separate noise program the way to go or stick with LR?


5D III | 80D | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 L II | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L II | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Canon 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM | Canon 55-250 f/4-5.6 IS STM | Ʃ 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM C | Tokina 11-20mm f/2.8 | Metz 50 AF-1 | Yongnuo YN 560 III/IV | Flashpoint AD360 | The Rest of My Gear | Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
heat00
Senior Member
291 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2016
     
Apr 01, 2016 13:56 |  #53

I too am wondering about all of this. My T3i and sigma 70-200 in questionable gyms just doesn't cut it. I can rarely shoot at 3200 and it usually at 6400. the result even after noise reduction in LR are not great. I also wonder if the sigma is up to the challenge of low light.

I am considering a new body even though I know I need work and practice on taking the pics at the right exposure along with better PP, there still seem to be limits of what the T3i can do. For example I only have the choice of 3200 or 6400 while I see the 7dii and other better bodies give you a real auto iso or at least the option of other iso's, i.e. 5000, 8000, 10,000, 4000 etc. surely this has to help?

I thought I was set on the 7dII however it's still in my mind that a 5DII and FF sensor must have better results especially given that the major problem I have is low light? I also like the idea of the true focal length of 70-200 on FF vs. approx. 100-300 on the crop. Rarely do I need to be closer up and I find that it is much more common that my shots are at 70MM and it's almost too close in many gyms.
Please keep in mind I am not any kind of professional and these are 6th graders, not NBA in a real lit gym lol.

Here is my last tournament shots, any advice or suggestions are appreciated. Seem a lot of you are in the same type boat, Teamspeed has been instrumental in giving advice so far and I would love to hear from others: I still feel that most of my shots are not focused properly and still very noisy/grainy even after noise reduction. Is the difference the body and its ability to gather more light/better at high ISO, or the lens not sharp enough compared to say the canon 70-200, or both?

https://flic.kr/s/aHsk​tUM4LX (external link)

I just cannot see how the 7dII will be anywhere near a 5DII, even with better FPS, the better quality at low light seems to me that it should outweigh the higher FPS? My t3i is 3.7 and the 5dIII is 7, still more than twice the shots in the same time period?

Thanks,




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,984 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4052
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (4 edits in all)
     
Apr 01, 2016 17:04 as a reply to  @ heat00's post |  #54

A 5D2 won't give you better results. The 5D2 implements the same basic AF found on the original 5D, and even if you turn on the helper points around the center, that center point is the only thing you will ever be able to use in sports. I even think your T3i has a better AF system than the 5D2, but don't know that for certain. The reason the 5D3 has a better AF system is that the users clamored for a much better AF system in the succeeding FF models. I would NEVER take a 5D2 into the situations you are shooting. I wouldn't take a 5D2 into the NBA games I shoot.

I would also put a 7D2 high ISO shot against a 5D2 high ISO shot any day. ;) It is at worst equal, but most likely better.

Missed AF could be body, lens or a combination of both. Tough to say, they both play a part.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
heat00
Senior Member
291 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2016
Post edited over 2 years ago by heat00. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 01, 2016 20:31 |  #55

As always, thanks buddy! I'm close to getting the new body!
I actually meant the 5diii.
How does a 5diii stack up to a 7dii? I can't imagine the 7dii gives the same results??




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,984 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4052
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
     
Apr 02, 2016 04:18 as a reply to  @ heat00's post |  #56

The 5d3 will give better results but you give up a bit of "reach" meaning you will have to crop more and have less pixels on target. This shouldn't matter for what you shooting though.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
heat00
Senior Member
291 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2016
     
Apr 02, 2016 07:36 |  #57

Agreed. I kind of like that idea as I find myself shooting a lot more towards 70mm by the basket instead of 200mm. One of my only remaining concerns about the 5diii is not having a built flash for those times where it's needed. I suppose I could just have an external one in the bag and it's not that often. Is there noticeable performance difference going to 5diii over 7dii as far as better iq at low lighting or is it neglibable after pp anyways?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
33,984 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 4052
Joined May 2002
Location: Northern Indiana
Post edited over 2 years ago by TeamSpeed. (3 edits in all)
     
Apr 02, 2016 08:15 as a reply to  @ heat00's post |  #58

You get close to 1 stop better improvement, so ISO 12800 on the 5D3 is close to the 7D 6400. It is probably just under 1 stop.

For flash, you can get one of these, very small and take up no real space, and acts quite a bit like the onboard, but better overall, more versatile.

http://www.amazon.com …tal-Cameras/dp/B001XURPR2 (external link)

However, the 7D2 has been good enough, with the reach into the stands when I need it. High ISO is easily cleaned up, I just a 3 or 4 steps I run on all files. True Auto-ISO in manual is the one thing I continue to use the 7D2 for. It is easily the one most important thing I use now over the 5D3. I set EC to +1/3 in manual and let the camera select the ISO. I just concentrate on DOF and shutter speeds. I still mess those 2 up, so I need all the help I can get. :)

I believe these are all ISO 12800, using JPGs out of camera, with some post cleanup.

IMAGE: https://gerberphotos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20152016/April-1/i-f9ZXWHr/1/X2/216A6990-X2.jpg

IMAGE: https://gerberphotos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20152016/April-1/i-HGW7tkp/0/X3/216A7172-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://gerberphotos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20152016/April-1/i-FkpcNkh/0/X3/216A7081-X3.jpg

IMAGE: https://gerberphotos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20152016/April-1/i-MBrCFmw/0/X2/216A7051-X2.jpg

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
neacail
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,188 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Likes: 437
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Calgary, AB, Canada
     
Apr 02, 2016 08:45 |  #59

MikeDee wrote in post #17956908 (external link)
Sounds reasonable. Thanks for the advice. Now I need to research noise handling techniques. Is a separate noise program the way to go or stick with LR?

I use a few of different Photostop plugins for noise reduction.

The one I use for hockey photos (Imagenomic Noiseware) doesn't work in Lightroom. It is available as a standalone program, but I don't think the standalone version has been updated in years.

Dfine is the noise reduction software in the Nik Collection. I use Dfine in Photoshop, but it is suppose to work with Lightroom. https://www.google.com​/nikcollection/product​s/dfine/ (external link)

That said, ksbal is getting very good results just using the Lightroom sliders. This 12800 photo is one that she has just done Lightroom NR on: https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17941648. The thread where she started to improve her process is here: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1455357. She's doing a great job just with Lightroom.

Unfortunately, I've never really took the time to learn the Lightroom NR sliders. You should be able to get usable 3200 files pretty easily, and 6400 might be possible with some clever technique.


Shelley
Image Editing Okay

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
heat00
Senior Member
291 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Jan 2016
     
Apr 02, 2016 10:19 |  #60

great shots. I guess you are right, the 7dII would be fine since noise can be reduced after. That would save me enough to grab my 24-70 to compliment the 70-200, which I want to swap for the canon too at some point lol!

for a second lens for bball, would you still suggest the 24-70? the only issue is that many times the 70-200 is too close in many of the gyms, most of my gyms where we play are middle school or small courts, there usually isn't room behind the basket to back up enough. That is one of the reasons I was thinking goto the 5DIII...

Although you bing up a good point about the true auto ISO, one less thing to worry about would be great and the only adjustment left would be SS if aperture is fixed at 2.8, right?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,682 views & 5 likes for this thread
New Body for Hockey (very high ISO)
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Sports Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dsp921
689 guests, 360 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.