Are these lenses good for nite football?

Shooter-boy wrote in post #3741763
Try a little noise reduction on ISO3200 and see if they still complain about the noise.

It is probably a standing rule from 1DmkI days...

Rob

And:

Nope, it's their Web site, their sales and their rules. "You can't fight City Hall", and all...if you submit an image higher than ISO800, they WILL reject it, regardless of the noise it may or may not contain.

What you, or even I, consider acceptable is immaterial. You don't have to like it or even agree with it. Anyone working for this company knows the rules, and you don't have to shoot for them, after all.

I have done a lot of HS football, in probably 30 or more stadiums in two different locations in the US, and Iv'e never seen one lit well enough to allow me to shoot entirely ambient light - at least one that would allow my images to be enlarged > 5x7, and that's the objective of the company Mike is talking about. They regularly sell images that get enlarged to poster size and there's no way to get acceptable quality at f/2.8, ISO3200 and 1/125s even with Noise Ninja - and this is the typical ambient light level at many HS stadiums. You might get lucky and find spots on the field that are maybe one stop brighter, but I've even shot one game last year in Florida where the ambient light was f/2.8, ISO3200 and 1/80s in the end zones!

FWIW, I would never consider shooting any action, at any level, with a shutter speed slower than 1/250s. Even with little kids, you get too much motion blur.

dmwierz wrote in post #3742848
And:


Nope, it's their Web site, their sales and their rules. "You can't fight City Hall", and all...if you submit an image higher than ISO800, they WILL reject it, regardless of the noise it may or may not contain.

What you, or even I, consider acceptable is immaterial. You don't have to like it or even agree with it. Anyone working for this company knows the rules, and you don't have to shoot for them, after all.

I have done a lot of HS football, in probably 30 or more stadiums in two different locations in the US, and Iv'e never seen one lit well enough to allow me to shoot entirely ambient light - at least one that would allow my images to be enlarged > 5x7, and that's the objective of the company Mike is talking about. They regularly sell images that get enlarged to poster size and there's no way to get acceptable quality at f/2.8, ISO3200 and 1/125s even with Noise Ninja - and this is the typical ambient light level at many HS stadiums. You might get lucky and find spots on the field that are maybe one stop brighter, but I've even shot one game last year in Florida where the ambient light was f/2.8, ISO3200 and 1/80s in the end zones!

FWIW, I would never consider shooting any action, at any level, with a shutter speed slower than 1/250s. Even with little kids, you get too much motion blur.

I think you missed the point...

cwphoto wrote in post #3743059
I think you missed the point...

OK, maybe I'm just stupid (thanks for the rolled-eyes smiley face), so remind me again what IS the point?

As I see it (and I'll stop here, since this is definitely hijacking the thread) the only point that matters is, if you don't like their requirements, don't shoot for them.

If there are any other "points", they all boil down to your (or my, as I said) personal preferences or your/my opinions, and since the company to which Mike was referring is a customer, a photographer who chooses to shoot for them does what they want.

When I shoot on my own, I still use flash, and will occasionally run my ISO's up to 3200 (the first shot below is at ISO: 3200, Aperture: f/2.8, Shutter: 1/800) - I shy away from ISO3200 whenever I can, though. Even with Noise Ninja and a Canon pro body, there is undeniably more noise at 3200 (or 6400 for the lucky few to have MkIII's that are working correctly) than at 1600 and below.

And, by the way, you do get a little motion blur shooting at 1/250s, but they trade this off for razor sharp, well-lit faces with colors that POP and virtually no noise.

The second image below was shot at ISO: 800, Aperture: f/2.8, Shutter: 1/250 and appeared in print in a twice monthly major US sports magazine that goes by a 4 letter name.

We can debate the artistic differences, what does and does not constitute acceptable noise, and which shot is a better shot forever, but this will not change one customer's requirements.

Do I like the look of a 1/250s ISO800 f/2.8 image? What difference does it make?

I now return this thread to its rightful owner.

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

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

dmwierz wrote in post #3743631
OK, maybe I'm just stupid (thanks for the rolled-eyes smiley face), so remind me again what IS the point?

...that the company doesn't know sh1t from clay. Simple really.

mkuriger wrote in post #3740549
I find that night sports are so brightly lit,

please tell me where you shoot i stuggle to have enough light at f2.8 1600 iso and 1/800th of second

will post pics from my wednesday night shoot in a while will post the link al shot with the 70-200 f2.8 and you can see how much light i had

dmweizr your alowed to shoot with strobes man we get a flash out of the box and get pounced on

cwphoto wrote in post #3743659
...that the company doesn't know sh1t from clay. Simple really.

Nice. Mature. Helpful.

Zilly wrote in post #3744109
p
dmweizr your alowed to shoot with strobes man we get a flash out of the box and get pounced on

I've only once been told not to flash, after over 100 HS games. This was an incident where a team was getting their behinds kicked (something like 42-0 in the second quarter), and the trailing coach complained that my flash caused his wr to miss a pass (I was about 20 yds away, not even shooting into the receiver's line of sight on the play in question).

As has been said before, the duration and intensity of the flash is so short that players simply don't see it. Again, the strobes used in pro arenas are WAY more powerful than my little 580EX, and if you think just because they're in the overhead, and that makes a difference, they light an entire arena to around a f/8.0 ISO 200 1/1000s from an ambient of ISO1250 f/2.8 1/500 - you tell me that isn't bright? And the athletes play with these strobes going off around them all the time.

its strange but its the rules set by the gorerning body so their is nothing i can do

btw pictures of my wednesday night football can be found here all shot with the 70-200 f2.8 l is

cwphoto wrote in post #3743659
...that the company doesn't know sh1t from clay. Simple really.

Well, I don't see how it's so simple and going to have to agree with everything Dennis already stated. 3200 ISO prints just aren't as good as 800 ISO prints and that's where this company is making it's money, that's simple enough to me. I understand there resistance to not accept any images over 800 ISO, they are not using it for editorial use where it will be in the paper one day and then gone forever. I shot a game tonight (baseball) for a paper and after a hour rain delay was a 3200 and still under exposed even though I got good frozen action at 1/500 and was done with it as those won't be prints. However, if I was shooting for prints, baseball cards, anything that needs to be crystal clear...I wouldn't of even shown up at the game and shot them tomorrow when the game will start on time with good light.

Those requirements are one reason I will shoot mostly day games on Saturdays just because I hate using flash - even if it doesn't distract the players, as a coach and fan I find them annoying most the time but mostly indoor sports as football it is less noticable. I am a varsity volleyball coach (and don't ever ask to use strobes or a flash in my gym - the answer is no) so I don't have the time to do all the leg work they can do and CHOOSE to work with them at those requirements. They are strict in there rules for good reason, and so far I've liked everything I've seen with them so won't try to go in complaining about any of there requirements. Hard fact is do it or don't, it's all chose and those who can't get by that...well then, oh well.

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #3748239
Well, I don't see how it's so simple and going to have to agree with everything Dennis already stated. 3200 ISO prints just aren't as good as 800 ISO prints and that's where this company is making it's money, that's simple enough to me. I understand there resistance to not accept any images over 800 ISO, they are not using it for editorial use where it will be in the paper one day and then gone forever. I shot a game tonight (baseball) for a paper and after a hour rain delay was a 3200 and still under exposed even though I got good frozen action at 1/500 and was done with it as those won't be prints. However, if I was shooting for prints, baseball cards, anything that needs to be crystal clear...I wouldn't of even shown up at the game and shot them tomorrow when the game will start on time with good light.

Those requirements are one reason I will shoot mostly day games on Saturdays just because I hate using flash - even if it doesn't distract the players, as a coach and fan I find them annoying most the time but mostly indoor sports as football it is less noticable. I am a varsity volleyball coach (and don't ever ask to use strobes or a flash in my gym - the answer is no) so I don't have the time to do all the leg work they can do and CHOOSE to work with them at those requirements. They are strict in there rules for good reason, and so far I've liked everything I've seen with them so won't try to go in complaining about any of there requirements. Hard fact is do it or don't, it's all chose and those who can't get by that...well then, oh well.

ISO 1600 has been fine for all media since the Mark II was released (I notice you conveniently ignore this ISO).

As I said, these guys are basing their policy on standards which were made redundant over three years ago.

The fact that it's their rules isn't under debate FFS. I was merely commenting on their policy - nothing more/nothing less . Many businesses are full of bad policy, and this is a prime example.

cwphoto wrote in post #3749044
ISO 1600 has been fine for all media since the Mark II was released (I notice you conveniently ignore this ISO).

As I said, these guys are basing their policy on standards which were made redundant over three years ago.

The fact that it's their rules isn't under debate FFS. I was merely commenting on their policy - nothing more/nothing less . Many businesses are full of bad policy, and this is a prime example.

MEDIA standards are different than prints, and I noticed how you keep conveniently leaving that out. Magazines & newspapers I shoot for use 1000,1250,1600,3200 - though if it's put up side by side with a 400 or so ISO guess what, the high ISO isn't getting used because of the noise at 1600 or 3200, even when ran through noise ninja or similar programs. Those are some of the largest and most recognized companies in pro baseball that want lower ISO more so than higher, they only use higher with noise if there's nothing else really. Is there seriously going to be a debat that lower ISO equals less noise? THAT'S what the company wants, less noise!

PRINTS for parents you do not want grainy crappy pics. Sure the action is frozen but they will ALWAYS see that noise, EVEN with noise ninja and hence why they want it at ISO 800 or below. We're talking posters, not wallets-5x7's, HUGE posters these get blown up into at times so of course they want you to stay 800 or below. It's just common sense that you'd use lower ISO...and about 3-4 years ago, the standard would probably have been 400 ISO since 800 wasn't that great back then.

As a side note to the ISO debate, what pixel dimensions does the company in question require for images submitted to them?

---- Gavin

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #3750225
MEDIA standards are different than prints, and I noticed how you keep conveniently leaving that out. Magazines & newspapers I shoot for use 1000,1250,1600,3200 - though if it's put up side by side with a 400 or so ISO guess what, the high ISO isn't getting used because of the noise at 1600 or 3200, even when ran through noise ninja or similar programs. Those are some of the largest and most recognized companies in pro baseball that want lower ISO more so than higher, they only use higher with noise if there's nothing else really. Is there seriously going to be a debat that lower ISO equals less noise? THAT'S what the company wants, less noise!

PRINTS for parents you do not want grainy crappy pics. Sure the action is frozen but they will ALWAYS see that noise, EVEN with noise ninja and hence why they want it at ISO 800 or below. We're talking posters, not wallets-5x7's, HUGE posters these get blown up into at times so of course they want you to stay 800 or below. It's just common sense that you'd use lower ISO...and about 3-4 years ago, the standard would probably have been 400 ISO since 800 wasn't that great back then.

No-one's arguing against lower ISO being better. But you are deluded if you think you that prints (whatever size) are unacceptably 'noisy' at ISO 1600 from a Mark II or better.

Are you suggesting that people who compete in or are fans of night (or full shade/poor lighting) events won't buy prints? Because by stupidly limiting photographers to 800 you are cutting your potential market in half.

Dumb idea, period. But the world is full of stupid people so it's not surprising.

cwphoto wrote in post #3751386
No-one's arguing against lower ISO being better. But you are deluded if you think you that prints (whatever size) are unacceptably 'noisy' at ISO 1600 from a Mark II or better.

Are you suggesting that people who compete in or are fans of night (or full shade/poor lighting) events won't buy prints? Because by stupidly limiting photographers to 800 you are cutting your potential market in half.

Dumb idea, period. But the world is full of stupid people so it's not surprising.

Yea, I'm noticing very well the world is full of stupid people.

It depends your standard of "unacceptable" prints, they're standards are higher and there's nothing wrong with that because obviously they have been very succesful at it. Just look at the examples that Dennis has already posted, you can see the little bit of noise in the first one that would be more evident in a print but not TOO bad. That's not the point...the point is they want as little noise as humanly possible and to do that they require 800 ISO....while on that, since when does everyone own a Mark II or better? Did I miss some sort of give away where everyone got one and noone is still shooting with a 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, XTI? Are those bodies now gone from the face of the earth? I know with my IIn that I get a little, but acceptable, noise at 1000 ISO, I know that I try to stay away from going above 1600, I know that 1250 is good for my needs but if I have a choice I want lower...You're selling prints to uneducated consumers, ones who don't know what ISO is - all they know is little Timmy looks a litte grainy in the pic they bought, and if you don't think parents will knit pick every last little thing then try coaching there kids!

Gavin, 300dpi