Why I want a 1DIII

So last night my son had a soccer game. Being just a small local soccer club, the lights for night games aren't great - which is to say they're fine for playing soccer, but not so great for shooting the games. In a vain attempt to get any sort of shutter speed from the trusty 400D, I had it at ISO 1600 and underexposed a whole two stops, while the 70-200/4 was wide open as always. Basically shooting at -2 and pushing it back in PP == red snowstorm

Seeing as the photos were rubbish anyway, I thought I might try something a bit different - I converted them all to B&W and left in the grainyness and excessive contrast, for a more 'arty' or, dare I say it, even 'edgy' look. What do you think? Does it work? Or is it just rubbish?

#1

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

They look good to me this way. However, what you really need is a faster lens...f/4 is slow as for that kind of thing. A 1D III wouldn't hurt you but it wouldn't help you much if you use the same lens in those conditions. You could get away with a 40D and 70-200mm f/2.7 IS and be a head quite a bit...in both image quality and expense. You're better off getting an f/2.8 lens to expose ISO3200 properly than underexposing ISO1600 by two stops.

Of course if you can afford f/2.8 AND the 1D III you'd be golden.

i think you did a good job with what you had...i tool used to shoot with a 400d before i got my 1dmkIII, now i can't image how i shot without it...the high iso and unreal af system make sports so much easier...i don't miss nearly as much as i did with the 400d when 3fps limited some of the shots that i now can capture with the 10fps...why don't you look at a 1dmkii or something if you don't want to drop 3500 right now..., even the 40d is awesome for sports and has pretty darn good high iso...

Thanks guys. 1DIII + 70-200/2.8 is my dream setup for soccer - I figure F/2.8 would be nicely complimented by ISO 3200 and good AF for low light stuff. Unfortunately my gear budget is $0 at the moment so I'm just practising "make the most of what you have."

Edit:

cdifoto wrote in post #6018621
They look good to me this way. However, what you really need is a faster lens...f/4 is slow as for that kind of thing. A 1D III wouldn't hurt you but it wouldn't help you much if you use the same lens in those conditions. You could get away with a 40D and 70-200mm f/2.7 IS and be a head quite a bit...in both image quality and expense. You're better off getting an f/2.8 lens to expose ISO3200 properly than underexposing ISO1600 by two stops.

Of course if you can afford f/2.8 AND the 1D III you'd be golden.

Actually, that's interesting. A while back I was able to shoot most of another night game with a borrowed 300/2.8 on my 400D, and found it didn't really help at all. Granted the lighting at that field wasn't as good as the one last night, and you did suggest teaming it up with the 40D, but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.

I have the same problem, and went down this track.

40D + 135mm F/2 L, I even some time use it with a 1.4tc, makes it f/2.8 and 189mm.

At ISO 3200 I can get 1/320 shutter speed @f/2.8

Works a treat under your average football field lighting. And the 135mm focus very well.

AdamC wrote in post #6018660
Actually, that's interesting. A while back I was able to shoot most of another night game with a borrowed 300/2.8 on my 400D, and found it didn't really help at all. Granted the lighting at that field wasn't as good as the one last night, and you did suggest teaming it up with the 40D, but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.

That must be really bad light. Are those your usual conditions?

Reality wise you can get ISO1600 underexposed by 2 stops (ISO6400) with the XTi and have minimal noise. Lighting of the subject plays a huge role in this.

If you have a flash read on.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=375847

BTW the 40D with a 2.8 lens and flash would also serve you well.

i dont see anything wrong with those pics other than being small

Uglyone wrote in post #6018890
I have the same problem, and went down this track.

40D + 135mm F/2 L, I even some time use it with a 1.4tc, makes it f/2.8 and 189mm.

At ISO 3200 I can get 1/320 shutter speed @f/2.8

Works a treat under your average football field lighting. And the 135mm focus very well.

hmm, actually that's not as silly as it sounds, once you throw the TC into the mix, although I'm not sure I'd like shooting soccer with a prime. A quick check says that dollar wise, that'd add up to more than the 70-200/2.8 non-IS though..

flickserve wrote in post #6018932
That must be really bad light. Are those your usual conditions?

Thank goodness no! He normally plays in the middle of the day on Saturdays, but due to weather canceling a couple of games, they've had a couple of midweek makeup games.

Paul S wrote in post #6019059
If you have a flash read on.
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=375847

BTW the 40D with a 2.8 lens and flash would also serve you well.

Unfortunately no flash yet! I'm not sure where I stand in the flash-at-night-sports-games debate, but I'm not sure I'd want to do it.

beezwax wrote in post #6019069
i dont see anything wrong with those pics other than being small

Thanks! You can click the images for larger and EXIF.

AdamC wrote in post #6018660
but after borrowing the 300/2.8 I concluded that F/2.8 still wasn't nearly enough.

Yes, if you only have a camera that goes up to 1600 ISO. As suggested with a 3200 ISO camera and a 2.8 lens, you would have a situation much more suited to the light you had.

200mm is quite small for soccer, IMHO but then I use 500mm f4. 400mm f2.8 is the ideal soccer lens paired with 1 series.

Love the selective color....really cool

cdifoto wrote in post #6018621
They look good to me this way. However, what you really need is a faster lens...f/4 is slow as for that kind of thing. A 1D III wouldn't hurt you but it wouldn't help you much if you use the same lens in those conditions. You could get away with a 40D and 70-200mm f/2.7 IS and be a head quite a bit...in both image quality and expense. You're better off getting an f/2.8 lens to expose ISO3200 properly than underexposing ISO1600 by two stops.

Of course if you can afford f/2.8 AND the 1D III you'd be golden.

+1 Good advice

When you get the $, sell the 70-200 4 and buy the 70-200 2.8 non-IS. That will give you one stop. Then buy the 40D, which goes to 3200 very cleanly relative to what you have now, and there you have your 2 stops. Looks like you have your shots down, your equipment is just failing you.

Keep practicing until you get the 70-200 2.8!