artsupreme wrote:
Your examples. Some players are isolated and the images look professional, and the others have busy backgrounds. I like your flag experiment shot.
Well I don't know if you noticed, but it's not exactly easy to attend a professional event these days, since there are hardly any. If I manage to attend any, the photos will look different. I also said I didn't want to post photos because I didn't particularly like any of these, but other users asked.
So until this happens, I suggest you take the remarks such as "The crops look like snapshots taken with any rebel camera in P mode with a kit lens or worse yet any smart phone." out of my thread and stuff them.
Milan Hutera wrote:
Well I don't know if you noticed, but it's not exactly easy to attend a professional event these days, since there are hardly any. If I manage to attend any, the photos will look different. I also said I didn't want to post photos because I didn't particularly like any of these, but other users asked.
So until this happens, I suggest you take the remarks such as "The crops look like snapshots taken with any rebel camera in P mode with a kit lens or worse yet any smart phone." out of my thread and stuff them.
I think you were clear these were not your best shots and you didn't want to post them. Don't worry, I'm not attacking your or your skills and I said you posted a mixture of snapshots and professional images. I think you are taking it the wrong way. I'm looking at it from a gear/crop/framing perspective, not a skill perspective. Crops or images with no BG isolation look like snapshots to me, and the others look professional. Just my opinion and what I see.
Mike_5D wrote:
Please post examples of smart phone action shots at 50m for comparison.
I don't need to. My point is no matter if it was 3 miles away, it still looks like a snapshot to me taken with phone. I'm sure someone else can post iPhone photos if they want that will look very similar.
artsupreme wrote:
I don't need to. My point is no matter if it was 3 miles away, it still looks like a snapshot to me taken with phone. I'm sure someone else can post iPhone photos if they want that will look very similar.
As for the others with bokeh, not as easy.
Except a phone wouldn't have gotten any of those shots. Not even close.
jedibrain wrote:
Big thing for me is trying to get isolated pictures of the players for their parents (U12 league). I can't ever go on the far side of the field, and sometimes the coach keeps some of the kids on his side of the field both halves (presumably to issue instructions). I need to talk to him about that, lol. But i'm just not sure I want to invest in the R5, it being so much more and requiring a further investment in expensive memory cards. I ran the R6 for one weekend on the smaller field last year (they switch to the larger field at U12, U11s still play on a smaller one). The speed and AF was GREAT, as you have seen and shown in your photos. I just need to get over the MP thing. Or wait until the R6 II, but that is years away at least. I could have a lot of fun with the R6 in the meantime!
Nothing wrong with having fun - it might result in better photos because you're having a good time.
What kind of product are you delivering to parents? Prints (what size)? Digital files? I'd be surprised if 20MP is not enough for this purpose (based on my experience shooting youth sports for on-site printing organizations).
Parents love seeing clear photos of their kids playing with intensity, having a good time, smiling, etc. The vast majority won't care about MP. If someone is bothered by 'only' 20MP, run it through interpolation software. That said, I agree you ideally want the kids in a sweet spot distance range for the lens you use for better background separation, but sometimes you don't have much choice if the kid is always on the other side of the field from you. R5 won't make that picture any better. Maybe more detailed due to better pixel reach, but really depends on the end product you deliver.
Again, resolution had many facets, and isn't just about print sizes. But the first goal should be optical reach in cases of sports, to alleviate the effects of cropping and using digital zoom to get to the end result.
I do agree if that the only customer of the end result are parents, their expectations are so low sure to low quality social media photos and cameras photos or the cheap consumer body/lens combos they might use themselves, the R6 will shine.
I just post digital files for them to view. They mainly look at them on their phone I'm sure. I do it all for free and without being asked, since I'm shooting my daughter anyway and I enjoy photography.
The across the field crops I end up with are sometimes as low as 4-5 mp with my 5D3. So proportionally less with an R6. They look fine at 100% size. I doubt any have been printed. I'm probably overly worried about nothing here.
Brian
rscheffler wrote:
Nothing wrong with having fun - it might result in better photos because you're having a good time.
What kind of product are you delivering to parents? Prints (what size)? Digital files? I'd be surprised if 20MP is not enough for this purpose (based on my experience shooting youth sports for on-site printing organizations).
Parents love seeing clear photos of their kids playing with intensity, having a good time, smiling, etc. The vast majority won't care about MP. If someone is bothered by 'only' 20MP, run it through interpolation software. That said, I agree you ideally want the kids in a sweet spot distance range for the lens you use for better background separation, but sometimes you don't have much choice if the kid is always on the other side of the field from you. R5 won't make that picture any better. Maybe more detailed due to better pixel reach, but really depends on the end product you deliver....Show more →
jedibrain wrote:
I just post digital files for them to view. They mainly look at them on their phone I'm sure. I do it all for free and without being asked, since I'm shooting my daughter anyway and I enjoy photography.
The across the field crops I end up with are sometimes as low as 4-5 mp with my 5D3. So proportionally less with an R6. They look fine at 100% size. I doubt any have been printed. I'm probably overly worried about nothing here.
Brian
The R6 is only 2 MP less than the 5D3. If it looks good on the 5D3 after your crop, it'll look as good or better from the R6. The R6's improved AF accuracy and overall sharpness more than makes up for the loss of 2 MP.
jedibrain wrote:
I just post digital files for them to view. They mainly look at them on their phone I'm sure. I do it all for free and without being asked, since I'm shooting my daughter anyway and I enjoy photography.
The across the field crops I end up with are sometimes as low as 4-5 mp with my 5D3. So proportionally less with an R6. They look fine at 100% size. I doubt any have been printed. I'm probably overly worried about nothing here.
Brian
Well, also keep in mind, the R6 will manage a lens and 1.4x or even a 2x substantially better than the 5D3. So you may lose resolution, but you might actually gain tighter framing with better AF with the R6, negating any resolution difference.
I shoot sports with the 100-400 and 1.4x with no issues at all on the R6. The 5D4 does that decently as well, but the AF may be more hit or miss depending on lighting and which AF points off-center are used. I can't remember on the 5D3, but the 5D3 AF is a bit inferior to the 5D4 as well.
This is a rugby shot across the field at 800mm (100-400 with 2x). AF didn't have an issue following the face.
This is at 560 (w/1.4x), AF no issues at all with this, and is pretty darn fast.
So in summary, where the R6 loses with resolution, it may gain with other lens/TC combinations with good AF that you may not be getting with your current DSLR FF.
I'm shooting girls HS volleyball and honestly most of the images I've taken with the R6 seem a bit soft. I've been using the same basic settings that I used with my 5D3 (1/1250, f/2.8, ISO3200-6400, EF 70-200 2.8 L II).
I'm using Eye AF when I can get a clear shot, otherwise I'm using Spot AF. It seems to hunt a lot more than the 5D3 did.
This first picture made me mad. She was perfectly still at center court. I'm sitting 10' off the edge of the court, maybe 30' away.
ChrisAttebery wrote:
I'm shooting girls HS volleyball and honestly most of the images I've taken with the R6 seem a bit soft. I've been using the same basic settings that I used with my 5D3 (1/1250, f/2.8, ISO3200-6400, EF 70-200 2.8 L II).
I'm using Eye AF when I can get a clear shot, otherwise I'm using Spot AF. It seems to hunt a lot more than the 5D3 did.
This first picture made me mad. She was perfectly still at center court. I'm sitting 10' off the edge of the court, maybe 30' away.
Something is really wrong. Assuming your shutter speed of 1/1250th is correct. Looks more like 1/250th with motion blur to me. If your shutter speed and all settings were correct those would be tack sharp so maybe you have an issue with your gear.
I think people will want to see the exif and also see where the focus point was that was used on those shots. If all looks good you have a gear issue.
TeamSpeed wrote:
Well, also keep in mind, the R6 will manage a lens and 1.4x or even a 2x substantially better than the 5D3. So you may lose resolution, but you might actually gain tighter framing with better AF with the R6, negating any resolution difference.
I shoot sports with the 100-400 and 1.4x with no issues at all on the R6. The 5D4 does that decently as well, but the AF may be more hit or miss depending on lighting and which AF points off-center are used. I can't remember on the 5D3, but the 5D3 AF is a bit inferior to the 5D4 as well.
This is a rugby shot across the field at 800mm (100-400 with 2x). AF didn't have an issue following the face.
So in summary, where the R6 loses with resolution, it may gain with other lens/TC combinations with good AF that you may not be getting with your current DSLR FF....Show more →
Someone pointed out the option for TCs as well. I'd largely forgotten about that, since reports of them on the 5D3 from way back when were generally not great. But it is an option on the R6. That image with the 2x looks really good. And the 1.4x looks like basically no degredation from the bare lens.
---------------------------------------------
artsupreme wrote:
Something is really wrong. Assuming your shutter speed of 1/1250th is correct. Looks more like 1/250th with motion blur to me. If your shutter speed and all settings were correct those would be tack sharp so maybe you have an issue with your gear.
Could this be related to the 'shutter shock' or whatever the term is? I know for certain shutter speeds you are better of with EFCS and for others you are better off with the mechanical shutter. I can never recall which is which, but I do often see 1/500 or sometimes 1/250 as the cutoff for when you should switch. But soft images seem to be the main symptom of shutter shock.
Based on those two examples, I'd do a set of boring low ISO 'brick wall' tests of the combo at various focal lengths. Check to see how good focus is across the frame, look for some corners soft while others sharp. Maybe try some posed, static shots her outside in good quality light to set a baseline.
To me it looks like a problem with the lens. In the first tight shot, her face is soft while the numbers on the jersey are sharp (all things relative). The softness in her face looks like camera shake/motion blur based on the streakiness of the blurring, but I really wonder if the lens might be optically out of whack. In the second image with the looser crop showing the other girls around her, the girl to the right looks sharper, but at 2000 pixels, it's not enough to really know.
There are telltale signs that all might not be well with the lens. For example, the tight crop in the white jersey, the left and lower edges of the white jersey against darker areas has a glow to it, whereas the upper and right side edges of the jersey don't.
Can you compare with another lens of similar focal length? Or rent another 70-200?
If you get the same results, then I would be suspicious about the adapter and/or the camera. It's really about narrowing down the variables. Right now there are too many possibilities to say for sure what the exact problem might be.
This very well could be a problem with the lens. It was dropped in 2018 and I had it repaired at CPS. It hasn't been back for service since then.
I tried shooting a few test shots at 16' with the R6 and then with my 5D3. Both of these were using spot focus. They look very similar other than the R6 images have less noise.
I used DPP to see which AF point was used for the pictures I posted earlier pictures. In both cases the AF point was on her eye. I noticed that the box was black and not red though. I assume that means that the camera wasn't focused.
The 5D3 had a setting called AI Servo 1st Image priority that you could adjust so that the shutter wouldn't release until the camera was focused. It doesn't look like the R6 has that setting.
That said, I agree you ideally want the kids in a sweet spot distance range for the lens you use for better background separation, but sometimes you don't have much choice if the kid is always on the other side of the field from you. R5 won't make that picture any better. Maybe more detailed due to better pixel reach, but really depends on the end product you deliver.
