After 20,000+ clicks with gymnastics, finally got a chance to test this bad boy under sunny condition for the first time. I usually shoot no more than a few games of softball/baseball per year, but the comfort level went up as the game went along.
All with MKIII and 400/2.8 with B&W IR filter (not sure if it was necessary). C&C Welcome.
Dennis, the MKIII has proven itself in low light after 20,000 clicks. Definitely faster in grabbing initial focus and tracking the gymnasts. However, I've only used it with 70-200/2.8, and have yet to use it with 200/1.8, which I will in about a 1 1/2 months time at the VISA Championships.
In regards to the IR filter... Since it was my first time out with baseball this season, and also first time out with the MKIII and a long lens under harsh light, I wanted to eliminate all the possible elements that MAY affect the focus performance of MKIII. There were a few threads discussing the possibility of the IR filter on the body maybe weak and maybe a culprit in the reported cases. From what I've read on IR filter itself, it could only help with picture quality if you use a quality filter on any lens. It wasn't cheap for the 52mm B+W filter, around $90.00. I can't say that it helped as I don't have any baseline to compare it to. But more than likely I probably didn't need it...
Thanks again to all who have commented. MKIII + 400/2.8 is really a nice combo but a little long for games like this. I also shot with 70-200/2.8 + 1.4TC on a 2nd MKII body but used it for only less than 5% of the frames. It's a nice combo as well, but not as good as the 400. Most files on the MKIII and 400 didn't need a lot of post processing. One thing I noticed is that the IR filter gives more saturated images.
John, a little long Really? I'm always of the belief that no matter then lens, you just need to find the right spot to use a lens to the fullest. I shot some baseball (forever ago) and happened to find a fan who was a photo buff, and he lent me a 2x tc. I shot pitchers at 800mm. I thought it was great.
On another note.. could you post a link or PM me with the link to that BW IR filter, I'd be interested in that for my 400 2.8.
BTW, wonderful series, nice colors, and it's making me antsy to play with my mk3 in daylight.
Thanks! The fields were a little small and I found myself leaning against the fence behind the bleachers when shooting the pitcher. Luckily the parents were kind enough to get out of the way. I think a 300mm maybe a better choice, which I don't own. But you're right, it's never long enough
Kinda tight - you can get the shot, but it's a test of your reflexes, ability to follow the ball (and bat/racquet, etc.) and a test of the ability of the camera/lens to focus. In both cases, I was stuck where I was and couldn't move any farther back.
I've also shot some youth baseball fields where there was almost no room behind the plate, and on the sides of the field, which made the 400 "almost" too tight. In these cases I was fortunate that the umps let me roam a little to get my field of view to where I could get acceptable shots, and ended up getting the full-body shots of the pitchers from behind the backstop, through the fence.
John, these are some excellent shots - once again, great job.
Really? I'm always of the belief that no matter then lens, you just need to find the right spot to use a lens to the fullest. I shot some baseball (forever ago) and happened to find a fan who was a photo buff, and he lent me a 2x tc. I shot pitchers at 800mm. I thought it was great.