Thanks for the kind word. One last thought on your used camera. The 1DII though no longer supported by Canon was (is) a hell of a sport/pj cam. They are very cheap right now and the 20D doesn't hold a candle to it. I'm seeing them at $400. Food for thought.
I understand getting thru university on a small (or no) budget. I suppose this is the point where I should note that you should be grateful that you don't have to buy film and developer. I promised I'd not become one of those old f@rts that said, "Back in the day we walked to school in the snow and it was up hill both ways!" Still, I think one can improve much faster with digital than I ever could with film. I'd carefully squeeze of my hoarded 36 exposures, fight for lab time, develop, print a contact sheet, and finally examine them in the light of day with a magnifying glass only to learn that I wasn't even in focus. No nostalgia for me.
Thanks for the kind word. One last thought on your used camera. The 1DII though no longer supported by Canon was (is) a hell of a sport/pj cam. They are very cheap right now and the 20D doesn't hold a candle to it. I'm seeing them at $400. Food for thought.
I understand getting thru university on a small (or no) budget. I suppose this is the point where I should note that you should be grateful that you don't have to buy film and developer. I promised I'd not become one of those old f@rts that said, "Back in the day we walked to school in the snow and it was up hill both ways!" Still, I think one can improve much faster with digital than I ever could with film. I'd carefully squeeze of my hoarded 36 exposures, fight for lab time, develop, print a contact sheet, and finally examine them in the light of day with a magnifying glass only to learn that I wasn't even in focus. No nostalgia for me.
That's the prob...nothing decent under $400 for a 1D II. And KEH, with 6-month warranty, is more like $600 for what most people consider like new. I think I'd rather pass on that, and try to get a 1D III at some point in the future, but while Canon still fixes the AF issue for no charge/no questions asked. Shooting the D1H/D1x currently, I know what those older cameras are like as far as batteries, unsupported software, hard to repair, etc. I had Midstate replace a shutter in my D1H last year a few months before Nikon shut down parts to independent repair shops. I bought a 1D (original) from KEH for $400 over the summer, but had to return it due to a focus issue. They tried to send it to Canon for service at my request (they offered this option even though I told them Canon won't touch them any more). But it came back from Canon untouched, so they refunded my money.
I've spent probably over $600 repairing SLR bodies and lenses this past year. I'm not hard on my gear...things just wear out after a while.
A colleague/mentor has an old 20D...I can have it for $140. A stopgap, yes, but if I'm going to buy a 135 L, it's all I'll be able to afford.
Film? I shoot film too, and have been for close to 20 years, believe it or not. I literally grew up with it. I haven't shot any for a long stretch of several months now, but will do so again probably this spring or summer to some extent. I used to (still do at times) go nuts buying/processing film...expensive stuff.
bignorm wrote:
Buy yourself a 100 f2.. they focus very fast and that leaves you cash to afford a better body!!!
The thought crossed my mind. I actually almost bought one last January when they were under rebate. But I think it might be a bit short for some things, such as football, and will require more cropping when the action moves further away.
Thanks for reminding me about this option though...it's tempting, even if the focal length is shorter. I know the 100/2 is a very good lens as well, and costs a lot less.
What would be the lowest level/least expensive/oldest body you'd recommend if I went this route? No Rebels, please though...not interested at all.
Let's say I shot and cropped a low-light 1D II sports image taken at ISO 1600 with the 100/2, to equal the FOV of a 300mm lens on full frame. Now, how many pixels would I be left with, what sensor size would it be equivalent to, and how would the image hold up? If anyone wants to send me a sample to play with, I'd be grateful.
Also, when the game play does move further away, can I expect to still get proper focusing now that the players are going to a bit smaller in the frame?
If the image at ISO 1600 under low light would indeed hold up, I have no problem with having to crop down a 1D II file to , say 4MP or so.
This is all about the best compromise without jeopardizing core values...and making an informed decision. Yes, core values...such as f/2.
For most sports other than football (indoor) the 100 is very sufficient.. the 1d mkII holds up to cropping fairly decently if exposure is correct. 1600 was never a problem for me... I tend to overexpose a bit to ensure low noise.. being able to do that will depend on your venue!!
ZoneV_Nikon wrote:
The thought crossed my mind. I actually almost bought one last January when they were under rebate. But I think it might be a bit short for some things, such as football, and will require more cropping when the action moves further away.
Thanks for reminding me about this option though...it's tempting, even if the focal length is shorter. I know the 100/2 is a very good lens as well, and costs a lot less.
What would be the lowest level/least expensive/oldest body you'd recommend if I went this route? No Rebels, please though...not interested at all.
Let's say I shot and cropped a low-light 1D II sports image taken at ISO 1600 with the 100/2, to equal the FOV of a 300mm lens on full frame. Now, how many pixels would I be left with, what sensor size would it be equivalent to, and how would the image hold up? If anyone wants to send me a sample to play with, I'd be grateful.
Also, when the game play does move further away, can I expect to still get proper focusing now that the players are going to a bit smaller in the frame?
If the image at ISO 1600 under low light would indeed hold up, I have no problem with having to crop down a 1D II file to , say 4MP or so.
This is all about the best compromise without jeopardizing core values...and making an informed decision. Yes, core values...such as f/2. ...Show more →
I still think even 135mm will be sorely way short for football. 135mm vs 100mm is basically meaningless difference in this scenario.
In fact, when I was shooting two bodies, one with 70-200 (as my wide angle) and the other with 300 2.8 (sometimes with 1.4x TC) I've found that like 90% of my best shots came from the prime.
ZoneV_Nikon wrote:
The thought crossed my mind. I actually almost bought one last January when they were under rebate. But I think it might be a bit short for some things, such as football, and will require more cropping when the action moves further away.
Thanks for reminding me about this option though...it's tempting, even if the focal length is shorter. I know the 100/2 is a very good lens as well, and costs a lot less.
What would be the lowest level/least expensive/oldest body you'd recommend if I went this route? No Rebels, please though...not interested at all.
Let's say I shot and cropped a low-light 1D II sports image taken at ISO 1600 with the 100/2, to equal the FOV of a 300mm lens on full frame. Now, how many pixels would I be left with, what sensor size would it be equivalent to, and how would the image hold up? If anyone wants to send me a sample to play with, I'd be grateful.
Also, when the game play does move further away, can I expect to still get proper focusing now that the players are going to a bit smaller in the frame?
If the image at ISO 1600 under low light would indeed hold up, I have no problem with having to crop down a 1D II file to , say 4MP or so.
This is all about the best compromise without jeopardizing core values...and making an informed decision. Yes, core values...such as f/2. ...Show more →
cropping 100mm to 300mm at ISO1600 is kinda rough especially since for at least half of the shots you'd have been even cropping the 300mm itself quite a lot to begin with.
for indoor basketball and gymnastics and volleyball and such it is a different matter
Thanks for the information on cropping. 100mm focal length on 1.3x sensor is out...simply too short.
Right now, for football (not a large part of what I shoot, but I do shoot it) the 80-200 on a 1.5x sensor is sometimes too long at the short end and too short at the long end. (As well as 2.8 being too slow at ISO 1600).
So, let's recap what we've decided so far:
-20D or lower is out due to not being a good focuser
-Any camera body that doesn't have a native ISO 3200 is out if the aperture of the lens is slower than f/2.0.
-Full frame is out due to cost and wider field of view. That leaves either 1.3x or 1.6x.
-Total cost of lens + camera body from KEH must not exceed $1000 at very most.
-Lens can be either a zoom or prime, but...
--Lens must be f/2.0 or faster for camera limited to native top ISO of 1600
--Lens must be f/2.8 or faster for camera limited to native top ISO of 3200
--Lens must be f/4.0 or faster for camera limited to native top ISO of 6400
---Image quality at ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400 of these respective cameras must be at least equal to the previous one in the list above as ISO increases.
----Amazing image quality at high ISO is not needed, but should be good enough for newspaper, web use, and occasional 8x12 inch prints.
Some potential options are:
Bodies:
-40D (AF?)
-1D II
40D is also redundant to my existing D200. I'm not a fan of the idea buying more or less the same camera again, but in a different brand.
Lenses:
-135/2 L (requires body capable of ISO 1600)
-200/2.8 L (requires body capable of ISO 3200)
-70-200/4 L (requires body capable of ISO 6400)*
-80-200/2.8 L (requires body capable of ISO 3200)
Cons to the 80-200L: parts may not be available if needed. Focus speed?
The zooms would increase framing flexibility, and give me most of the focal length versatility I already have now (correcting for 1.3x of Canon 1D series versus 1.5x of Nikon).
*I don't think any of these bodies do well at ISO 6400. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Anther option is to simply replace my Nikkor 80-200 with a newer, faster focusing version of this same lens. However, if I do this, I'll still be stuck at ISO 1600 maximum with my current Nikon bodies, and that isn't enough ISO for some things, like football on a dimly lit field.
Best option: 1D II and 80-200/2.8 L? Might not be able to do so with specified budget? Would require at least ISO 3200, if not 6400, at f/2.8. Possible on 1D II?
Alternate option: 1D II and 200/2.8L. Cost savings by buying used version I instead of II? Would still require ISO 3200 on 1D II. No zoom; lens will be too short for some things, and too long for a lot of things (thinking football). Can't uncrop an image. 200/2.8 L is also not part of my long-term buying plan for Canon EF lenses (135/2 L is however).
Summary: No good solution in Canon gear under $1000? Maybe just keep suffering with what I have is the best idea (Still have to use flash, and get >70% OOF images in night football with current Nikkor 80-200 AF generation I lens, but it at least provides a decent focal length range on 1.5x sensor).
Question: how do you long prime users (300/2.8 on 1.3x) do it for night football? The lens becomes too long for a lot of the plays.
Still, I think one can improve much faster with digital than I ever could with film. I'd carefully squeeze of my hoarded 36 exposures, fight for lab time, develop, print a contact sheet, and finally examine them in the light of day with a magnifying glass only to learn that I wasn't even in focus. No nostalgia for me.