Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 03 Mar 2009 (Tuesday) 20:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1D3 necessary for PJ?

 
Zander ­ Albertson
Senior Member
359 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Oregon
     
Mar 03, 2009 20:51 |  #1

Currently I have the Mark II and 1D, and the 70-200 2.8, 17-40 and 50 1.8. I am a freelance photographer covering mostly HS sports but also some spot and general news. I am planning on buying a 300 2.8 and making the 17-40 a 16-35, and after that I will have some $$ left for another body. Right now I am really tempted by the 1D3 - I could really use the ISO 6400 for the high school caves I shoot sports in, and the IQ and look of the files from the 1D3 are really tempting. But on the other hand, the 1D2 I have now does the job. It doesn't to it super well at 3200, but it works for the newsprint my work get published on. Either way, I would really like to get a 2nd body that can do at east 1600 comfortably, as the 1D is pushing it there.

So really the question is, is the 1D3 as "necessity" for PJ/sports work, or am I just being a gear head and desiring it when the 1D2 could do the job just fine?

Interested in hearing your opinions.
Thanks in advance!
Zander


Editorial Photographer, Canon Digital.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
JX
Senior Member
508 posts
Joined Aug 2004
Location: Cleveland, Ohio
     
Mar 03, 2009 22:25 |  #2

I am a staff photographer for a newspaper. I do have a 1D MK3, I no longer use my two 1D Mk2s for sports. Is the 1DMK3 a better camera than the 1D MK2 or 1D MK2n? Yes it is. I don’t like the AF system on the MK3, I don’t find that it is any better than my MK2n or my MK2. However, I still fell the MK3 is a superior camera. Nevertheless, I will tell you to wait until August and see what Canon does. I am hoping they come out with a camera that will exceed the high-end ISO range of the Nikon D3.


JX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Exit
Senior Member
472 posts
Joined May 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Mar 03, 2009 22:41 |  #3

If the 1d2 can't do what you need then yes you need the 1d3 :)

I've been through all the 1 series bodies and the 3's are a worth while step up from the 2's (N)


http://www.weekend.ee/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
     
Mar 03, 2009 22:54 |  #4

No, it's not necessary, but it would be a great camera to have. However, the 1D Mark II's are solid. Although it is important to have 2 bodies. If you can afford it go for it, but you can also improve yourself on some lens and lighting if you are doing full PJ (not just sports).

Keep in mind, that the 1D Mark II/MK IIn has served many PJ's very well through the years. And before that, another solid camera. All those cameras obviously had their own technical challenges even if they were the best at the time.

It all comes down to money though. :)


Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,322 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 536
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 03, 2009 22:55 |  #5

Zander Albertson wrote in post #7449466 (external link)
Currently I have the Mark II and 1D, and the 70-200 2.8, 17-40 and 50 1.8. I am a freelance photographer covering mostly HS sports but also some spot and general news. I am planning on buying a 300 2.8 and making the 17-40 a 16-35, and after that I will have some $$ left for another body. Right now I am really tempted by the 1D3 - I could really use the ISO 6400 for the high school caves I shoot sports in, and the IQ and look of the files from the 1D3 are really tempting. But on the other hand, the 1D2 I have now does the job. It doesn't to it super well at 3200, but it works for the newsprint my work get published on. Either way, I would really like to get a 2nd body that can do at east 1600 comfortably, as the 1D is pushing it there.

So really the question is, is the 1D3 as "necessity" for PJ/sports work, or am I just being a gear head and desiring it when the 1D2 could do the job just fine?

Interested in hearing your opinions.
Thanks in advance!
Zander

i think it's the best camera going for the job. i have it and the 1ds mark III...and the 1d is clearly the most versatile camera i've ever used by a longshot :D.

ed rader


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zander ­ Albertson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
359 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Oregon
     
Mar 03, 2009 23:01 |  #6

I would say 80-85% of what I shoot is sports and the rest general community events/other news. If used prices by August fall to 2k or so, it will be feasible for me to get a 1D3 after I pick up the 16-35 and 300 2.8. I would be buying a 300 2.8 non-is - is this a potential problem maintenance wise?


Editorial Photographer, Canon Digital.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Zander ­ Albertson
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
359 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Oregon
     
Mar 03, 2009 23:03 |  #7

grego wrote in post #7450246 (external link)
If you can afford it go for it, but you can also improve yourself on some lens and lighting if you are doing full PJ (not just sports).

You mention improving on lenses - what other than the 16-35 and 300 2.8 in addition to the 70-200 2.8 would you recommend?
Thanks!


Editorial Photographer, Canon Digital.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
basroil
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,015 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2006
Location: STL/Clayton, MO| NJ
     
Mar 03, 2009 23:23 |  #8

Zander Albertson wrote in post #7450289 (external link)
You mention improving on lenses - what other than the 16-35 and 300 2.8 in addition to the 70-200 2.8 would you recommend?
Thanks!

16-35 i hope you mean mkii, huge difference in quality. for indoor sports, 70-200 is generally the best, but if you shoot wider a lot, 85 1.2 is actually really good for practically all indoor sports (bit hard to wield at first, but if you can master the slower focus and odd feel, it provides images that would leave you amazed. for longer ones, 300 is nice, 200 1.8 works great, and for daytime field sports, 100-400 is actually a beast of a lens.


I don't hate macs or OSX, I hate people and statements that portray them as better than anything else. Macs are A solution, not THE solution. Get a good desktop i7 with Windows 7 and come tell me that sucks for photo or video editing.
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
grego
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,819 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2005
Location: UCLA
     
Mar 03, 2009 23:50 |  #9

Zander Albertson wrote in post #7450289 (external link)
You mention improving on lenses - what other than the 16-35 and 300 2.8 in addition to the 70-200 2.8 would you recommend?
Thanks!

Well for low light shooting, 16-35 2.8 would be more useful. Mark II is definitely an improved version. 300 2.8 is fairly standard for sports shooting. It is useful at bball games as a secondary lens (and a wide) so you can get a unique battery of photos. Pre-game and post game stuff with wide or very narrow. A lot of good profile shots with clean backgrounds you can do with the 300 in the gym. Obviously a lot is dependent upon what you think you shoot a lot of. I think you can't go wrong with any way you start with though. If you are in it for the long haul and it's your profession get what makes you the best you can be (combined with your skill set).

Obviously the 200 f/2 IS or 200 f/1.8 (discontinued) are other good choices for low light shooting, albeit it kinda long FOV on 1.3 crop as your main lens.


Go UCLA (external link)!! |Gear|http://gregburmann.com (external link)SportsShooter (external link)|Flickr (external link)|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
René ­ Damkot
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
39,856 posts
Likes: 8
Joined Feb 2005
Location: enschede, netherlands
     
Mar 05, 2009 14:21 |  #10

Zander Albertson wrote in post #7449466 (external link)
Currently I have the Mark II and 1D,
[Snip]
I am a freelance photographer covering mostly HS sports but also some spot and general news. I am planning on buying a 300 2.8 and making the 17-40 a 16-35, and after that I will have some $$ left for another body.
[Snip]
the 1D2 I have now does the job. It doesn't to it super well at 3200, but it works for the newsprint my work get published on. Either way, I would really like to get a 2nd body that can do at east 1600 comfortably, as the 1D is pushing it there.

I'd probably save some money, and get a used 1D2n for now.

That way you'll have two bodies that "do the job"


"I think the idea of art kills creativity" - Douglas Adams
Why Color Management.
Color Problems? Click here.
MySpace (external link)
Get Colormanaged (external link)
Twitter (external link)
PERSONAL MESSAGING REGARDING SELLING OR BUYING ITEMS WITH MEMBERS WHO HAVE NO POSTS IN FORUMS AND/OR WHO YOU DO NOT KNOW FROM FORUMS IS HEREBY DECLARED STRICTLY STUPID AND YOU WILL GET BURNED.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

1,274 views & 0 likes for this thread
1D3 necessary for PJ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dannykastle
1136 guests, 222 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.