-=1D Mk II and Mk IIn Owners Unite!

.....yeah Tim....but when 'ya have to...'ya have to:

https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=45815​0&page=341

....scroll down to post 5103....ISO3200

I'm concerned about shooting night football this year with the 1D2N @ 3200 myself. I will definitely have to push some of the exposures in post due to some of the absolute horrible lighting at some of the fields, and the 1D2 pics don't look too hot when I do that. I'm seriously considering a 1D3 or even a 7D for this reason. The only alternative that I see with the 1D2 is setting up a decent monopod/flash set up, but I really don't care for the look of flashed football.

It depends on what you are wanting to do with the images. You're gonna have a tough time creating "art"....but if you are "selling" the images, you'll be fine. People don't buy "art"....they buy a photo of their kid playing sports....they stick it in a scrapbook on the refrigerator door and leave it there until it's all dog-eared. Believe me.....they are not near as critical about these things as we are.
You should see some of what get's shot out there in the sports world.....a lot of it is stuff you or I would delete straight away. Some of it is pretty disgusting !

george m w wrote in post #10327017
It depends on what you are wanting to do with the images. You're gonna have a tough time creating "art"....but if you are "selling" the images, you'll be fine. People don't buy "art"....they buy a photo of their kid playing sports....they stick it in a scrapbook on the refrigerator door and leave it there until it's all dog-eared. Believe me.....they are not near as critical about these things as we are.
You should see some of what get's shot out there in the sports world.....a lot of it is stuff you or I would delete straight away. Some of it is pretty disgusting !

Yeah, a couple of sporting events I was at for gymnastics, ice skating, and hockey had some down right horrible shots. They would pretty much point the camera and spray at high FPS and then didn't even go through the shots and had OOF, motion blurred, under exposed pics with clipped appendages allover. The scary thing was, the parents bought them right up and were ooohhhing and ahhhhing about them.

george m w wrote in post #10327017
It depends on what you are wanting to do with the images. You're gonna have a tough time creating "art"....but if you are "selling" the images, you'll be fine. People don't buy "art"....they buy a photo of their kid playing sports....they stick it in a scrapbook on the refrigerator door and leave it there until it's all dog-eared. Believe me.....they are not near as critical about these things as we are.
You should see some of what get's shot out there in the sports world.....a lot of it is stuff you or I would delete straight away. Some of it is pretty disgusting !

This is true...I have sold plenty of ISO 3200 images shot with the 30/40D with no complaints from the customers. My concern with the 1D2 at high ISO started this year with basketball, had a tough time processing the pics to my satisfaction.

tfd888 wrote in post #10327048
Yeah, a couple of sporting events I was at for gymnastics, ice skating, and hockey had some down right horrible shots. They would pretty much point the camera and spray at high FPS and then didn't even go through the shots and had OOF, motion blurred, under exposed pics with clipped appendages allover. The scary thing was, the parents bought them right up and were ooohhhing and ahhhhing about them.

Well, 99% of those parents have tried and tried to get a decent pic with their point and shoot at the games, only to be extremely disappointed and frustrated when the shots are always extremely dark, or extremely blurry, so I understand how our pictures (Even at ISO 3200 ) look really impressive to them as at least they can see something

.....and the key words there are, "to my satisfaction"

I hear 'ya. I want all my stuff to meet my standards, but the truth is that all too often, the paying client just does not know the difference. We see the noise in the shadows of the dark uniform....they see see their darling offspring carrying the ball.

Now....if you have the money to buy a Mk3 or Mk4 for the improved noise handing....go for it. But from a practical standpoint of doing for real business reasons....there probably ain't nuthin' in it.

Something Different 1DMK2 + 24-70 f/2.8L _ 580exII

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

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

Wow, that's pretty wicked! Last time I used a bow and arrow, it sure didn't look anything like that.

george m w wrote in post #10326883
.....yeah Tim....but when 'ya have to...'ya have to:

https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=45815​0&page=341

....scroll down to post 5103....ISO3200

i agree, but WOW, that just shows me that i obviously have more to learn about my exposure because none of my higher ISO shots looks that good, and i've never past 1600 before...

Damn Newbies !!! (oh wait, that's me...) guess that explains why i don't like going that high, sorry, ill keep stupid comments to myself next time. And i'm not trying to be sarcastic... i really do mean it, if any of my shots look bad, I have no one to blame but myself, i love my 1D and all the help i've gotten from POTN, but i do still have a LOT to learn.

I'm debating whether to buy a 17-40 F/4L or a Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 for my 1D MK II. I have to sell my 50mm to buy either though, but I might get a Sigma 50 F/1.4 down the line. Any opinions on which combo you guys like better (the 17-40 or 24-70)? So far I'm thinking 17-40.

kawboy613 wrote in post #10328278
i agree, but WOW, that just shows me that i obviously have more to learn about my exposure because none of my higher ISO shots looks that good, and i've never past 1600 before...

Damn Newbies !!! (oh wait, that's me...) guess that explains why i don't like going that high, sorry, ill keep stupid comments to myself next time. And i'm not trying to be sarcastic... i really do mean it, if any of my shots look bad, I have no one to blame but myself, i love my 1D and all the help i've gotten from POTN, but i do still have a LOT to learn.

At 3200 you have to be spot on, or overexposed and pull back the exposure slightly after, otherwise the noise can be pretty high.

yeah, that little button for over/under exposure is something I guess i'm going to have to FORCE myself to start using and getting the hang of more often, lol.

.....and there 'ya go: well said. It's critical that you not start out under exposed.

shmoogy wrote in post #10328317
At 3200 you have to be spot on, or overexposed and pull back the exposure slightly after, otherwise the noise can be pretty high.

If I have to shoot at 3200, which I hate doing bc of the noise, I expose properly at ISO 1600 in Manual and then bump the ISO to 3200 and then pull it back in post. This way, I'm guaranteed a somewhat overexposed image, but nowhere near enough to ruin it.

Has anyone else tried this?