First game out with the new D3. I thought I'd give it a shot with the 70-200 VR and then with the 200-400 4. I learned quickly that while I liked the 200-400, I'd much rather use my 300 2.8 IS and 1D III. the 70-200 VR D3 combo, however, trounced my usual 1D III 70-200 2.8 IS combo.

Here's two quick shots.

D3, 70-200 2.8 VR, 1/640 2.8 ISO 2000, K 3450

ISO 4000.

Lol.

Geez.

Nice shots. I played with D3 and 300mm f2.8 non VR and it was very nice combo.

kiz5 wrote:
ISO 4000.

Lol.

Geez.

I was thinking the same thing--wow!

Nice colors too.

Well, here's a mk3 with a 300 2.8. Same processing as my other images.

Max,

for the above shot with 300mm, where do you shoot from? I mean how far you need to be to get the full subjects in the frame.

opposite end of the court. regulation is 94', but they're in the paint, and I'm behind the line, and there's an angle. Let's say 90 to 100 feet.

Max

P,

love your work! I think the 200-400 gives you some room to flex with. Too bad canon does not have this range (yet). The shots are great! How much do you think the K 3450 would change from pro venue to pro venue? A lot or not so much? What would your thoughts be with the canon 200 1.8 and maybe the 1.4xII over the 300 2.8? using it with a mark III. Did you manually set your WB with each camera? They both look great! Would love to here your thoughts. Thanks.

Robin

K3450 on the D3, 3400 On the 1D III. The Canon goes in increments of 100, the Nikon in some other (125, or something). I shoot Kelvin when possible, but will also go preset (daylight, cloud, etc) if needed. Sometimes I'll go custom, but rarely have a WB tool handy. It's rare that I shoot auto, but I try to shoot whatever works best given the situation.

For Suns games, I pretty much have it set, and prefer 3400 Canon, 3450 Nikon. I've tried everything from Tungsten (bit too blue) to 3200 (still too blue) to 3500 (just a touch warm). 3400,3450 is the sweet spot for what I like.

The 200 1.8 is an excellent lens, but focus by wire makes it slower than a 300 2.8 IS. The 300 non IS is ALSO focus by wire, so then it's fairly even. The 200 and 1.4 would be more versatile.

I don't know about the 200-400. It's convenient, but I'm not the type to really shoot with an f/4 lens when I have 2.8 lenses. What I'd jump all over: a 500 2.8. If Sigma can make a damn zoom with 500 2.8 at its long end, Canon or Nikon can man up and make a 500 2.8. I don't care if I got a hernia carrying it, but I'd do it.

Max

Max,

Thanks for the up. I am gonna be shooting a lot of Bulls and Blackhawks this season. The funky WB is my learning curve. I will work on my sweet spot with that. I am not sure yet, but will have to see what it will take to tie into the strobes there. Maybe worth a try, but may end up with a "0." I really appreciate your talent and willingness to help others. Kinda like what a true pro should be. When you spoke of the USM on the 200/1.8 v. the 300/2.8 IS, are we talking nano seconds, or traditional seconds? I don't own the 300 IS, but have the 400IS, and the difference is worthy of noting from the first gen versions. Thanks again for the up, and I look forward to seeing more of your stuff. Peace.

Robin

Max we really appreciate your unbiased viewpoint on these two gems and their optics. Very few of us will ever own both so your views are so cool. Would you mind giving us your impression of how existing light at say 3200/6400 compares between the two on a BB court. I know the colors straight out of the D3 are absolultely amazing.

Robin, the difference is noticable, but not a dealbreaker. I shot with a 300 2.8 non IS and did just fine for a year or more. To me the difference was enough to move on, but it's fractions of a second.

Beau, colors from the D3 can be amazing, if you shoot standard. Here is how I shot, and will likely shoot for the most part:

D3:
D-Lighting: OFF
HIGH ISO NR: OFF
ADOBE RGB
Picture Control: NL*. It's Neutral, but I set the sharpness to 0 (it defaults to 2).

1D III
High ISO NR: OFF
Hightlight Tone Priority: ON
ADOBE RGB
Picture Style: Neutral (which does default to 0)

Trust me when I say the color difference is noticable, but I wouldn't say I prefer the D3. Skin tones tend to look more orange to me. But again, that's a preference. Both looked great after a quick process. The three images above were all treated equally with regards to sharpening and toning. I also used the same noise reduction strengths, but each had their own manual profile attuned to the noise in each.

I don't think it can get much more even than this, with the exception to take D-Lighting and set it to Low. Normal is a bit much, but Low might bring in the whites a touch and perhaps brighten up those shadows.

The colors you talk about may be Picture Controls. Standard and Vivid both looked good. I also like Standard on the 1D III, but I never use them, because I can do a fine job in post, and honestly, the process takes me seconds per image and can almost run automatic. I don't do a lot of high volume so I don't need to get finished images straight out the camera. When I did though, I would shoot Standard, NR to On or Normal, sRGB, etc.

All this writing. I guess at some point I'll do a write up on my thoughts between the two for the blog.

Max

Max,
I may have missed something here but why were you shooting Nikon? Are you considering switching? the photos look great, as usual. I can't wait to shoot some basketball but the HS season doesn't start around here for 3 more weeks since I don't cover any schools that don't play football.

Mark

Mark,

I tried out a D300 and 70-200 VR combo a while back. I loved the lens, but not the camera. I realized that on a full frame, a 70-200 would be perfect for basketball. I thought I'd give it a nice workout and see how I liked it. I was pretty happy with it. I also realized that by having some horses in both camps, I would have a lot of flexility. Certain lenses, like the 200-400 just aren't made by Canon. The 200 2.0 is over a thousand dollars more expensive for Canon than it is for Nikon. That alone is a D300. And some lenses are just outright well made, like the 14-24, and that 70-200 VR. Finally, the D3 is a sporty full frame camera, which creates a really nice look, and ISO up to 6400 native just adds to it.

Max

Sounds like a plan. Just don't go completely to the dark side! ha ha

Mark

Max,

Excellent shots. I will be shooting the D3 this year for high school ball and I am wondering how was the focus speed with it? What settings were you using for focus?

Also would you highly recommend the 70-200 vr for nikon? Is it that good?

What did you use to process the images?

Thanks

The focusing speed was fine. I felt the mk3 was faster on the draw but less consistent. And the 70-200 IS, I dunno how to explain it, but basically I don't think it tracks as well as the 70-200 VR. Also, at longer distances, the resolution tends to suffer.

It's not that the 70-200 VR is magical, I just don't trust my IS all that much with fast moving objects or objects at a distance. Before anyone asks, I tried it on cameras from the 10D all the way to a 1D III (about 8 cameras) and about 4-5 different copies (both IS and non-IS). It's sharp enough at normal distance, but if something moves too much, tracking was a hit and miss affair.

Oh, I do note that IS seems way better than VR. I haven't been a big fan of VR but IS has done well for me.

I just did a crop, noise ninja and a quick tone adjustment before resizing for web. the tone adjustment is to taste. The key is getting the right WB.

Oh and I won't switch over completely. Each one has it's advantages. But the allure of the 70-200 VR coupled with a full frame sports camera really called me.

Max

PShizzy wrote:

The 200 1.8 is an excellent lens, but focus by wire makes it slower than a 300 2.8 IS. The 300 non IS is ALSO focus by wire, so then it's fairly even. The 200 and 1.4 would be more versatile.

Max

Could you elaborate on what "focus by wire" means? I've never heard the term and having just bought a used 300 non IS, I'm kinda interested. Thanks.

from the Digital Picture:

Manual focus is a focus-by-wire design - a motor drives the lens focusing as the well-damped focus ring is turned. This design requires the camera to be powered on to drive the motor. Although FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing is available, you first need to press the shutter release half-way (or AF-On button) and achieve AF lock. Then FTM focusing will work as long as you keep the shutter release pressed half way. An especially nice feature is the adjustable manual focus speed. A switch allows selection of three focus speeds: 1 = 1/2 standard (for precision), 2 = standard and 3 = 2x standard (for fast-moving subjects).

full read at:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/Canon-EF-200mm-f-1.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The old 85 1.2 L is focus by wire as well. It works fine but it's not super fast.

Max

i forgot to ask but why do you shoot AdobeRGB?

PShizzy wrote:

All this writing. I guess at some point I'll do a write up on my thoughts between the two for the blog.

Max

I am looking forward to this. Should answer many questions.

Richard K.

Matt,

Because Adobe RGB has a larger color gamut than sRGB, and that lends itself better to any post process. Also, images that are out of the sRGB spec just get crushed (reds, for example), while Adobe RGB has a little more headroom to capture it. Also, conversion to sRGB in Photoshop is easy, so I don't see the point in shooting a smaller gamut.

I guess I could shoot RAW too, but I think I do a good job with WB and exposure.

As for the write up answering questions, I'm not sure what's being asked, so if you have a specific question, I'll be glad to offer my opinion. The write up won't be scientific, because I don't want to waste time shooting rulers and stuff, but also because a camera to me is about the overall picture. It either works better for you or it doesn't, I don't expect any one camera to be better in every category than another camera unless its an evolutionary change and it's years down the line.

Max

Max,

The questions are pretty simple really. What does the D3 plus lens do better than the MKIII and what does the MKIII do better than the D3. All done by a sports shooter than doesn't have an axe to grind with either camp. As for shootings rulers and brick walls, I haven't seen much of a market for those images. If the demand picks up, I'll shoot a few.

Simply put; a hands on review about the handling and the capabilities of both cameras in the hands of someone with a foot in both camps but not upset with either. Plus the difficulty, if any, of using both cameras (interfaces) at the same time. Is using both systems a possible solution, or sticking with one better?

I'm not into a "my camera is better than yours" thing, if that what you were thinking, just a resect for your opinion.

Richard K.

Richard,

I wasn't implying anything. Really, I just have no idea what to write about in regards to the comparison. But your post has really gotten me to thinking. I'll let people know when the post comes out, and thanks for the help.

Max

Max,

I'm sure whatever you do for the blog will be well done and well thought out. You have peaked my interest in a possible two camp solution. I use a 70-200 a bunch, and although I have never used a 200-400, I have always believed it would make a great LL baseball lens.

Better stop before I'm warned off by Carl.

Great blog by the way,

Richard K.