Bodybuilding: 20D vs 300D One Year Later

Last March I had my first oportunity to photograph a novice bodybuilding/fitness event at a local theatre with my trusty 300D and 501.8II lens. I learned a lot from that show, and even more from the following pro show last summer in which I used my 300D again, with the 85F1.8.

On Saturday I got to return to the novice competition, now armed with the 20D, 85F1.8, 135F2L, and most importantly, experience.
My second show last year I had about 30% keepers, and of those I would say I had 2 really sharp pictures that I was 100% satisfied with.

Well, what a difference a year makes. This time, I would say I had 90% keeper, and of those I would say 90% were stunning and would blow away the best I had last year with the 300D. Of course the real deal AI Servo helped big time, and the incredibly low noise. However, the thing that impressed me the most was the increased dynamic range on the 20D. With the 300D I had blown highlights all over the place. This isn't always a bad thing in bodybuilding as it helps emphasize the muscles of the competitors. It's really only bad when the blown highlights are on the face. Well, with the 20D, I actually found my self having to play with the levels to purposely, slightly, blow some highlights to give the physiques some pop.
That's a great problem to have, isn't it?

Using the 85F1.8, my shots were much better than last year with the same lens. The images with the 135F2L were even THAT much better. I have to admit, the lighting this year was a bit better than last year. I was able to get 1/500s wide open at ISO800. And 1/1000s at ISO1600 for the fitness routines was a dream!

Anyway, I will post a few threads in the Sports forum in the next few hours for you to peruse.

Bodybuilding thread
Fitness thread

I am interested in viewing the shots. Your 'one year' story is very interesting, it is good to see that we do make progress in our personal skill and add with that some better gear as well. You do learn more by struggling some . . . I know that I for one am better off that way.

Will you post a side by side shot(s)? for comparison.

Thanks RJS
There are 2 links above to the threads.

Also, for comparison...
The first image is one of the better shots from last year's novice, the second is one from this year that represents what most of the images look like:

2004 - 300D w/ 50mm

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

Nice images, the 300D shot was nice if a bit flat, the 20D image really shows the quality.

Excellent job.

Thanks Davo.
The thing I find interesting is how my judgment of what is good and what is not has changed.
When I snapped those first pictures last year, I was so excited about how good I thought they looked. Now if I had takent he same pictures, I probably would have sent most of them to the trash bin.
So now I am excited by the quality of this year's pictures, and next year I probably will think they suck. I suppose that is a good thing.

It is a good thing . . . drisley. I am always going back and shooting over importing places and things. Over and over. Last years stuff just won't cut it today. Skill, composure, equipment and practice with this new skill set one develops, this is what makes this hobby so darn much fun.

I looked at your links and they look very nice, I would like to try something like that someday.

Thanks RJSorensen.
I agree, it's a good thing.
The only thing that has me worried is that I think what I shot this year are ok, but then I wonder if I'm not seeing what everybody else is seeing

That 2nd shot is great..........the background compliments the skin-tone so well.......nice shots! Excellent!!

I looked at both your last years and this years pictures.
Last years are superb by anyone's standards, and I hope that in the future I can shoot that well.
This years are not just superb, they are stunning, as well as the definition, they seem to really capture what the moment must have been like for the subject, and it comes through to the viewer of the picture too. Pure class.

It is natural to always want to improve, so you may not see it yourself. I am a graphic designer, and I sometimes over-design things, when an outsider can see the merits of vey early working drawings on my worksheet. Sometimes you just need to actually take a step back, admire your work, and give yourself the occasional pat on the back.

I'm just curious, can you post the camera data shot for both of these and how you shot these images (tripod, free hand). I too do allot of comparing and trying to figure out what works and what has failed in the pass. I'm still getting allot of bad shots followed by some really good ones, but haven't figure out exactly how to make every shot fantastic for every situation....yet. If I had to guess, it looks like the first one isn't motion blur from the subject, but more on the camera end shake?

That second one is a great shot.

Thanks toddb.
Both shots were hand-held. You can tell by the exif info on the first one how little experience I had. I was only using ISO400 at the time
Also, the lighting this year was obviously much better.

2004 shot:
50.0mm, f/2.0, 0.017 s (1/60), iso400

2005 shot:
135.0mm, f/2.0, 0.0006 s (1/1600), iso1600

And DaveO, thanks for the kind words. You are too kind!

The year later shot is real nice. Where do you get frames like that for your pictures. I have elements 2 and I just got CS which I thought would have a lot more frames but it doesn't or else I can't find them.

Thanks bolling.
I actually get more comments about the frame I use than my pictures.
I just made the frame myself using a couple layers, stroke, and drop shadow. I made this into an action that I use for all my pictures. It was very easy.

Hey Drisley . . . awesome shots!!! I see that your shots were taken at iso1600. How much (if any) Noise Reduction did you have to do with you 1600 20D shots?

I'm contemplating a 20D because I like to use natural lighting and my 300D is bad at 800 and above.

Thanks!!

Markubig,
I normally don't use any noise reduction at ISO1600. The noise is simply not visible at output (print or at websize). The only time I even consider using noise reduction is if I severly underexpose an image at high ISO, or sometimes at ISO3200.
However, this was a rare instance that I did use my Noise Ninja. The reason? Not because the noise, but more because I liked the effect on the bodybuilder's skin, a slightly smoother tone.
In fact, the setting I used in Noise Ninja was very, very low... -10 strength for luminance and colour, which is half of the default setting.
People who complain about noise are too busy looking at their pictures at 100% in photoshop. That really doesnt mean much since that is not final output. Output is all that counts to me.
Btw, if you want to see some images shot at ISO1600 and ISO3200 without noise reduction, have a look at my basketball shotsfrom a couple weeks ago.
If you are worried about ISO noise, there is no better digital camera you can buy than the 20D. It beats all competition in that department (1D MKII is very close though).
Simply put, I never think twice about using any ISO on my 20D. I just use what I need

135.0mm, f/2.2, 0.0020 s (1/500), iso3200 NO Noise Reduction

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'