Baseball @ ISO 6400 Without Noise Reduction (8 pics)

Hey Chris - Thanks for posting the examples -- good stuff! I'm liking the MkIII but I'm pretty sure I'll want Canon's next 1D upgrade and unless I have a very good year I can't afford both .

I know we have a lot of folks here who aren't familiar with the game of baseball nor what constitutes salable baseball images. FWIW I've never sold an image similar to Chris's Kline shot while I've sold countless images similar to his Ratliff shot. As a matter of fact, I usually delete images like the Kline shot and I can't get enough like the Ratliff shot. I'm not saying, the Kline shot isn't worth keeping (the bat flex makes it a keeper because a lot of folks don't know that aluminum bats flex like that), but after a while all bat-on-ball shots look the same -- faceless images that could be half the guys on the team unless you know them well.

Jerry, you would post more pics at high iso, you are starting to make me drool. I have been wanting to wait till the fall camera shows to see if Canon comes out with something, but if you keep postings pics like these I may not be able to wait .

Talley.....I sell to high school kids.....and in my experience the Nebraska shot would sell more...and that is a great shot. I personally don't even know if I would keep the Stanford shot because of the odd expression on his face. Definitely not if it was softball.

I could have really used ISO 6400 the other night. I was only getting 1/500 at 1st and 2nd base and 1/250 at home base at ISO 3200.

this camera handles high iso like crazy

RGolfJ wrote in post #5311218
Talley.....I sell to high school kids.....and in my experience the Nebraska shot would sell more...and that is a great shot. I personally don't even know if I would keep the Stanford shot because of the odd expression on his face. Definitely not if it was softball.

I guess it all depends on who your clients are. In an editorial world, shots where the face is visible will usually sell better than an obscured face. I can see where the player and/or the player's parents would love the bat-on-ball type shots though.

Intersting

That's pretty incredible stuff.

Hey Jerry.... you say you didn't do much for these shots in PS. What about white balance. If these shots are straight from camera except cropping, I am very impressed because I never have been able to tweak the IIn to get shots this on with night ball. Is it really that much better than the II?

Mark - I shot Auto WB and RAW, used PS CS3 to convert images to jpg with default settings and made no changes to white balance during conversion. I've been very impressed with the MkIII's low light capabilities which are much better than the MkII's, but the other day I shot an early afternoon game under a cloudless Florida sky and I wasn't overly impressed with how those images came out -- cap shadows are either too dark or highlights are too blown out and I couldn't find a good trade off. I think with a few more outings I'll get there and I should have plenty of intense, harsh sunlight before the summer is over. I'm also anxious to see if summertime heat causes AF issues.

Nicely done. If it weren't for the solid background of the dugout in those shots, I am not sure I would notice any noise at all.

fslshooter wrote in post #5360744
Mark - I shot Auto WB and RAW, used PS CS3 to convert images to jpg with default settings and made no changes to white balance during conversion. I've been very impressed with the MkIII's low light capabilities which are much better than the MkII's, but the other day I shot an early afternoon game under a cloudless Florida sky and I wasn't overly impressed with how those images came out -- cap shadows are either too dark or highlights are too blown out and I couldn't find a good trade off. I think with a few more outings I'll get there and I should have plenty of intense, harsh sunlight before the summer is over. I'm also anxious to see if summertime heat causes AF issues.

Thanks for the feedback. I have been dragging my feet on upgrading my Canon bodies. Also appreciate that you are able to decipher the intent of some of my post.... I am horrible at proofing my own writings. Cheers!

I'd say bring the blacks up (closer to clipping) and you wouldn't be able to tell if they were shot iso 400 or 6400. I've seen that mkIII generally looses contrast as the ISO increase, and by 6400 you need to start changing the contrast curves a bit to make it look the same as lower isos.

What do you guys mean it looks great? Of course it does. Resized for web shots eliminate the noise.

No 100% crops here. You just in it for the cheap thrills? Everyone's gonna say it looks better than x until they see the 100% crop. Can you put one up, I'd like to know what ISO 6400 is really getting you. I like pics 6-8 too.