What next - 300 f2.8 or 1DX?

Hi all. Long, long time lurker, first ever thread starter. I have learned a ton of information on this forum, so I thought I would reach out and ask a question. I am an amateur enthusiast, have been shooting all of my life but have been taking it much more seriously over the past few years. I have a day job that allows me to afford this as a hobby, so I have some great equipment. I started shooting my kids' sporting events years ago with a 40D. A few years ago I decided to go full frame, and bought a 6D. Love it for portrait work of the family, but found it way to slow for field sports, so I added a 5D3. After two years of shooting high school football and soccer, I realized I could use a few more fps, so I added a 7D2 late last year as an early adopter. I typically shoot high school football for my son's team with the 7D2 and a 70-200 f2.8 IIL, and a 5D3 with a 24-70 f2.8L for sideline shots. Now that the new Friday night football season has started under the lights, I'm realizing that the 7D2 is not as great at higher ISO that is needed in most of the high school stadiums. Last week I took a shot with the 7D2 and 70-200 on the field and had it printed at 11x14 for a gift for one of the player's parents. They loved the shot, but I'm a perfectionist and I was just not happy with the lack of detail particularly in the face after cropping, bumping exposure a bit, and noise reduction required due to the high ISO required for the low lighting on the field (I think I shot it at ISO5000). I like the 7D2 over the 5D3 particularly with the high FPS and AF system and added reach, but with the 7D2 I'm concerned that the higher ISO's needed are just too much even with appropriate noise reduction.

So, I'm considering either replacing the 7D2 with a 1DX, or adding a 300 2.8 to the mix. I'd love to go with both 1DX and 300 2.8, but I really don't want to spend that much all at once, considering this is supposed to be a stress-relieving hobby for me and I don't ever plan to make money from my photos. The problem for me is I don't like to do things unless I do them well, and I certainly wouldn't want to provide anyone with an image that I'm not proud of, even if I'm doing it for free. So, should I consider going with a 1DX knowing that I can bump the ISO to a higher level than the 7D2 in the low light conditions of high school stadiums but lose a lot of reach, or should I consider a 300 2.8 to get even more reach out of the 7D2 and reduce the amount of cropping needed? Or, just work with what I have? Hoping to get some good feedback. Thanks for listening.

Heya,

So changing to the 300 F2.8 nets you only a change in pixels on target and field of view. The F2.8 is the same as you're already shooting, so this doesn't change your ISO usage at all.

The difference in high ISO performance between the 7D2 & 1DX is less than 1 stop. If you think that's worth the $3.5k~4k, then it will give you the best high ISO performance Canon can offer right now. But again, it's less than 1 stop of ISO difference in real world performance. That may be enough for you. It may not. That's your call.

Also note, the 1DX is full frame. You are going to get less pixels on target with your 200mm lens, so lower resolution in general. Not only are you going down in resolution from the 7D2, you are also losing field of view reach, and ultimately less pixels on target, so you will be cropping heavily.

Personal suggestion, I'm willing to bet that you could get significant gains by simply becoming more skilled at shooting with high ISO and how to expose properly with it, for your intended subject matter.

ISO 5000 is not high ISO in the context of night time sports.

Starting point for me would be 1/640s to 1/1000s, F2.8, ISO 12,800 likely.

I would happily shoot night time football with a 7D2 at ISO 12,800 and a F2.8 lens.

Post some examples of what you think is noisy?

Another point, the 1DX isn't going to solve your ISO problems either. It's not a magic bullet. You still have to have the skill of shooting at high ISO to process the noise. An under-exposed photo on the 1DX will still show noise just like any other sensor will.

Lastly, take some time and research TeamSpeed here on this forum and check out his methods for noise reductions.

Very best,

If it was me, and I just recently got a 1Dx, I would get the 300 f/2.8 and put it on the 5D3, it already has virtually the same AF system as the 1Dx. FPS are very nice but it isn't the beat all end all for cameras. If you can learn your timing with a 5D3 then you will excel with your 7D2 or future 1Dx. Sports isn't all about spray and pray. As mentioned already, learn your post processing and exposure better, work on your timing and this will make your pictures better. Good luck to you and have fun. Also, don't pixel peep on night time sports pictures, you will be disappointed a lot if you are expecting studio type results.

Go with the used 300mm f/2.8L IS USM lens. It's a can't miss choice. Use it for a few years and sell it for what you paid. It's definitely a huge improvement in reach over 200mm plus the IQ is superb.

Thanks for the responses, I appreciate the feedback. I recognize there is no magic bullet, and I recognize that timing can be everything in sports photography. That's one of the reasons that I have added the 7D2, as I'm not a typical spray and pray, but I have noticed that sometimes that in-between frames shot can be the one that you really want to capture, even though the difference between 6 and 10 fps doesn't seem like much.

I've been leaning towards the 300 f2.8 for a while, and I think that's the direction I will like proceed. Hoping to find what I want used. Now I just need to get my post count up so I can start posting in the buy/sell boards!

Sounds like your budget for this is pretty good, so my suggestion is skip the 300 and go right to the 400 2.8 IS V1.

Keep the 5D3 and 7DII.

rdalrt wrote in post #17709051
Sounds like your budget for this is pretty good, so my suggestion is skip the 300 and go right to the 400 2.8 IS V1.

Keep the 5D3 and 7DII.

Wouldn't it be better to get 300, put it on 7DII and get 480 out of it, and then put 70-200 on 5D3?
Sounds like a decent sports set up to me.

At your current max focal length of 200mm, are you cropping a lot and/or are you finding yourself wanting more reach?

I was in almost a similar situation last year and decided to sign up for CPS Gold membership that allowed me to get evaluation loans from Canon so that I can try out the competing options before I decided. I decided to go for the reach than upgrade camera body.

CPS gold has been something that I've been recommending to a lot of people lately that's asked me about my gear. If you can't decide, go through the evaluation loan process and see which one you would be happier with.

As other have said above, if you are hellbent to spend the money then get the lens.
Or, just try some different setting as Mal had suggested and spend more time on technique and editing.

As I found out last week dark fields are tough... especially since I only have the 70-200 f4 IS. I was shooting 1/500 at ISO6400 and I did not get the results I would have liked.
I'll let the ISO get above 6400 next time. I'm going to try the 135L too and see what happens.

John wrote in post #17709860
At your current max focal length of 200mm, are you cropping a lot and/or are you finding yourself wanting more reach?

Yes, John, I find that at 200mm, I end up cropping a lot and wanting more reach, even with the added "reach" of the crop sensor of the 7D2. In many ways, I guess this answers my own question, since I always seem to want more reach for football and soccer, regardless of whether I shoot day or night games. A 300mm will get me 480mm equivalent on the 7D2, and the 70-200 works wonders on the 5D3 for closer action and bench shots.

Regarding editing and technique, I have spent a ton of time working on both, and it shows in my work. I notice, however, that I am always needing to crop more, and this is of course where the images start to degrade, particularly for night games with the amount of shadows on the face/eyes. I guess I need to the follow the first half of the "shoot tight, crop tighter" rule, which means a longer lens. I plan to first rent a 300 f2.8 to see if that helps to achieve some of my goals in getting cleaner shots. And to not be so concerned with bumping ISO even higher.

Thanks to all for the advice.

Can you afford the 300mm f/2.8 Is ii? It'll let give you more versatility as you can add extenders with less IQ drop for whenever you add a 1dX in the future. Sort of future proofing.

I would get the 300 F2.8, won't depreciate nearly as much as 1Dx. I also think the 5D3 is more than enough for sports. Hell, I'd be happy with a 6D. I mostly shoot 2 or 3 shot bursts when there is something interesting happening, and that's enough to get 95% of what I would keep if I shot 3x the number of photos.

m.eo.w wrote in post #17711149
Hell, I'd be happy with a 6D. I mostly shoot 2 or 3 shot bursts when there is something interesting happening, and that's enough to get 95% of what I would keep if I shot 3x the number of photos.

Well, you don't really have to shoot heaps of photos, you can do small 2-3 pic bursts, but it helps a lot in sports if this 2-3 photos are shot as close as possible to one another (1DX = 14fps, 6D = 4.5fps). That's what gets pros their "money shots". So I wouldn't put 6D on top of my sports gear list.

Jakaph1 wrote in post #17711622
Well, you don't really have to shoot heaps of photos, you can do small 2-3 pic bursts, but it helps a lot in sports if this 2-3 photos are shot as close as possible to one another (1DX = 14fps, 6D = 4.5fps). That's what gets pros their "money shots". So I wouldn't put 6D on top of my sports gear list.

Yup. Seems like you actually shoot sports! Big difference between 6, 8, 10 and 12 fps for this 2-3 shot burst.

Also, I think the sports shooters never post to POTN anymore. I think they're too busy trying to make ends meet these days.