Perhaps a silly question but this is the case. I've been using a used canon 1d for several years and everything is fine. I take pics of my kid who is playing soccer and use a 70-200 and a 300 4.0.
But.. he is now playing half-field and will soon go to the whole field (instead of 50 meters to a 100 meters). At half-field I can use both lenses well. At full field I think it will be more difficult. So I was thinking to get more reach (I use the 300 with the canon extender 1.4 but I don't like the speed of AF in that case) and to buy a 400 5.6 (the rest of Canon above 300 is way out of mine financial reach). Then I will gain 33% more field (the 300 has an angle view of 8 and the 400 an angle view of 6 degrees).
On the other hand when I buy a used canon 1dII I will gain a 42% greater sensor on both sides so I can crop more. And I will have the advantage of better higher iso's than the canon 1d. So with the limits of mine financial reach I was thinking to buy a used 1dII instead of going for the glass. Am I overlooking something, am I comparing apples and oranges??
I think you are looking at a tricky problem there!
The 1d and 1dII are both 1.3 crop sensors, so I think the extra 42% you refer to is just pixel density. While that's true, when the players are far away, (and smaller in the viewfinder) it's harder to focus on them as the autofocus points are harder to keep on the players, and the camera sees smaller objects to focus on.
with longer glass, you'll be able to autofocus better with the 1d.
Also, the 1dii will keep on dropping in value, you'll soon get them for 7 to 8 hundred dollars, so get the 400mm lens now, and get the body later.
Yes, I meant the pixel density. I thought that I could crop more. But I didn't thought of the "smaller" objects in the viewfinder.
Ans yes, I could stay half-line. That is something I'm doing already. But now I've only have to cross 25 meters. On a whole field this will be more difficult. I don't want to shoot the kids at there backs. Now I can change quickly from position but on a whole field.... I need a far better condition. And sometimes I try to guess on which half the action will be and almost everytime I choose the wrong position. When I think the team of mine son will atack most of the time they are in defense and vice versa.
I would say position yourself in the best place possible to get some of the action,(ie near the goal being attacked or defended) while you may miss some action further away your images of play thats within reach will be better for it. You cant cover the whole pitch from 1 possition so dont bother trying.
At half time is it possible to change possition?
Its better to get a few very good keepers than lots of average images that you will not look at again.
(Had you thought about actually watching some of the game itself?)
Also look at where the photogs cover premier league games. Its not normally the halfway line.
I'd continue to use the 70-200 with the 1Dm2 and then if it doesn't fit your expectations you can look for another lens, but be aware you will be talking serious money. Good luck.
Also look at where the photogs cover premier league games. Its not normally the halfway line.
I have to agree photographers at premiership level seem to stay on the goal line about half way between the net and the corner flag. And use a 300 or 400 on a tripod and a 70-200 f2.8 on a second body hand held for the close stuff like corners and goal attempts.
John,
If you want to spend money on an upgrade that will help you out, look at a Canon 300mm f/2.8. It takes a 1.4x teleconverter very well, and this gives you 420mm with virtually no loss in image quality or AF speed (unlike the 300/4 + 1.4x, which, as you note, becomes rather sluggish). And as others have said, no single lens will allow you to shoot the entire field. Your best bet will be to determine how much of the field you can effectively cover with your equipment, then forget about everything else (or, put another way, wait for the action to come to you).
mirageII wrote:
I have to agree photographers at premiership level seem to stay on the goal line about half way between the net and the corner flag. And use a 300 or 400 on a tripod and a 70-200 f2.8 on a second body hand held for the close stuff like corners and goal attempts.
I think you`ll find that the premier league photographers are not sitting on the goal lines by choice. At the FIFA U-20 tournament in 2007 the only people allowed up the sidelines were the official FIFA photographers. All other media folk were required to remain within designated spaces behind the goal lines. That wasn`t so good for the jubo shots because after scoring a player generally towards the bench and thus shows his back to the photographers.
I used to shoot my kids soccer games with a 500mm and often that wasn't enough. Get the 400mm f5.6 and the Mk II or Mk III if you can. May as well be happy.
Might I suggest that you spend your money on a 50D instead of depending on cropping down a 1DmkII? That is, unless you think a 400 by itself will be long enough on the 1DmkII for your expected results. For me personally, I use a 400/f2.8 +1.4x TC-II or 500/f4 on a full field when I want to do tighter work on a single player without cropping much of the shot (1DmkII or 1DmkIII). When I don't want to lug the 400/f2.8 or 500/f4 and 1-series, I'll grab a gripped 40D+300/f2.8, sometimes with the 1.4xII.
When the light is low, it's the 400/f2.8 on a 1-series or 300/f2.8 on a 40D for me and I still find a need for reach at times. Again, it depends on how you want the shot framed. Some people prefer to shoot loose and crop while I like to get as tight as I can.
mervifwdc wrote:
I think you are looking at a tricky problem there!
The 1d and 1dII are both 1.3 crop sensors, so I think the extra 42% you refer to is just pixel density. While that's true, when the players are far away, (and smaller in the viewfinder) it's harder to focus on them as the autofocus points are harder to keep on the players, and the camera sees smaller objects to focus on.
with longer glass, you'll be able to autofocus better with the 1d.
Also, the 1dii will keep on dropping in value, you'll soon get them for 7 to 8 hundred dollars, so get the 400mm lens now, and get the body later.
otoh the 1 series (and 5 series) have expansion points which tend to let one still keep the small distant players in the focus zone and since there is less relative movement in distance it is easier on the AI Servo guessing.
but none of that is even relevant here since both cams are APS-H the players will appear the same exact size to the AF sensor on both cameras, nothing changes at all.
jojet wrote:
Merv and MirageII thanks for the response.
Yes, I meant the pixel density. I thought that I could crop more. But I didn't thought of the "smaller" objects in the viewfinder.
Ans yes, I could stay half-line. That is something I'm doing already. But now I've only have to cross 25 meters. On a whole field this will be more difficult. I don't want to shoot the kids at there backs. Now I can change quickly from position but on a whole field.... I need a far better condition. And sometimes I try to guess on which half the action will be and almost everytime I choose the wrong position. When I think the team of mine son will atack most of the time they are in defense and vice versa.
maybe try watching a few games without shooting to get a better feel for the flow and then you can predict better in the future?
then again maybe not
one of my best skills as a player was always knowing where the ball was going and how the field was developing, but many people don't seem to be able to ever 'see it' though
Ian.Dobinson wrote:
I would say position yourself in the best place possible to get some of the action,(ie near the goal being attacked or defended) while you may miss some action further away your images of play thats within reach will be better for it. You cant cover the whole pitch from 1 possition so dont bother trying.
At half time is it possible to change possition?
Its better to get a few very good keepers than lots of average images that you will not look at again.
(Had you thought about actually watching some of the game itself?)
Also look at where the photogs cover premier league games. Its not normally the halfway line.
sometimes positioning is not by choice though so you need to be careful to read too much into things
granted many do like to sit in those spots no matter but there are penty who get fine shots up and down the lines too. i myself prefer to shoot about half the time along the goal line and half up and down the lines
and if you really know the game, chasing after the action actuall can work quite well, it's not a fool's errand at all (but tiresome if you are not fit)
It is still puzzling. I not only shot my kid but I shoot also the other kids of the team for the other family's. Perhaps I should aks some funding of the other family's
Lately I've done some indoor-soccer and I didn't like the high iso's of the 1d. So there would be a plus for the 1dII, isn't it?
The options of an 300 2.8 or larger lenses at 2.8 are financial no options, alas.
I've considered the 50d but I don't think the AF is that good (as a 1d serie)? Otherwise that would have been an option.
