soccerphotos
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.3 #6 · Has anyone regretted moving to an R7? | |
rscheffler wrote:
@soccerphotos@ Because it's a big shift in equipment, I'd still suggest a transition period to be sure it's working for you.
As I think I mentioned, I used various 400/2.8s for decades. They are technically sharper than the 200-400, particularly with TC use, and the newer ones rack focus faster. This is also a technical discussion forum where sometimes technical qualities are given higher priority than they may deserve in actual use, which is where some experience with all of these options really helps a lot.
Bottom line, I will never go back to super-tele primes (for sports in non-reach limited situations) if I have a choice because of the flexibility and convenience the 200-400 offers at very similar image quality. When I first got the 200-400, my game coverage productivity with it increased considerably because I could cover more of the field faster than with a prime. And that flexibility was particularly valuable with the 'low' resolution of 18-20MP at the time.
The R5's increased resolution basically lets you crop a ~20-24MP vertical frame out of a full horizontal image, so that's something going for it. But it does nothing for you when the action is too close for whatever prime you're using. You could pair it with another R5 and 70-200 for near action and crop that as needed.
But you still have the limitations of its non-stacked sensor with respect to peak fps rates (if that matters to you), or potential e-shutter distortion, for the sports you're shooting.
I'd say the R3 because of the potential variety of sports, the budget allows (I feel like you'll eventually end up with the R3 anyway, so just cut to the chase), but also because your primary focus appears to be soccer. That big, perfectly round ball is going to be brutal with any non-stacked sensor camera in e-shutter mode (same with basketballs, baseballs, bats and hockey sticks). And I think even the R3 may possibly show some distortion if the speed of the object is fast enough.
Based on various online tests and what I've seen myself with the R6II compared to the R5 and R6, while the R6II has faster sensor readout, it's not two or four times faster, where it would make a real difference. It's something around 1/80 vs. 1/60 for the R5 and 1/50 for the R6, IIRC. So, for my requirements shooting football, because the ball is oblong and often not in the air, some distortion is acceptable and not overly noticeable. Where I see it most is when the football is kicked on punts or kickoffs. Given that soccer balls are kicked, sometimes at tremendous force, it's precisely the 'danger' area where non-stacked e-shutter fails. When I shoot hockey, I use EFCS and low fps rates because I'm doing on-site sales with print on demand. No one wants to look through a long 20fps burst of someone else's kid.  So I totally avoid e-shutter there.
In respect to 'reach' with APS-C vs. FF, you should also consider the quality of the images you'll get when the action is far away, vs. closer.
There are a bunch of variables to this too, like if it's outside, if it's hot and sunny, if it's a game on artificial turf (which most teams/schools now use) instead of natural turf and what the background looks like.
Artificial turf on a warm, sunny day will result in a lot of heat radiating off the turf, which degrades image sharpness the farther away the subject and the longer the lens. (It can also happen in the winter. What is important is if there is significant heat differential causing atmospheric distortion.) And at such distances, the ratio of camera to subject to background distances shifts the subject closer to the background, resulting in less background blur and subject isolation. So while you'll have more reach with the R7 or R5, the aesthetic qualities of the photos won't be as appealing compared to when the action is closer on the near half of the field where you'll benefit from more background blur for better subject isolation (and the 'pro' look to the photos), and less atmospheric distortion caused by heat radiating off the field.
There are a bunch of considerations for each sport, venue, time of day, but in general my opinion is that action looks better when it's closer to you, within the 'sweet spot' of the lens. And with the 200-400, you have a larger sweet spot to work with. A crop sensor is the same as cropping the same area out of a FF image. To avoid cutting off subject content when you make the crop, the subject either has to be farther away, or you use a wider focal length, both of which diminish background blur. With FF, you can shoot tighter with longer lenses and the subject closer to you, thus blurring the background more.
This generally assumes your intent is making 'pretty' photos of game action and are not required to capture all key game moments. If this is the case, then you have the luxury of being more picky about where you position yourself, what areas of the field you cover and the type of action.
Also, while the 200-400 is very flexible, it isn't necessarily ideal for some sports. For example, if you can only shoot hockey through the often very beat up glass, stick with a 70-200 or 24-105 and wait for the action to come closer. If the rink has camera cutouts, the 200-400 is too physically wide to comfortably use those and you're better off with a more conventional lens. All of the youth hockey I shoot is from the benches, and there the 200-400 covers both goals and most of the ice very nicely. But I give up the attack coming right at me across center ice. For basketball I'd only use it for far court action, but then you run into the messy background situation again (which may or may not be important to you).
Bottom line is that whatever you decide will be based on a number of priorities and compromises. There isn't one absolute best solution. IMO, you take what you have and tailor your coverage to the strengths of your equipment (if you're able to pick your shooting positions to do so). That might mean you ignore far field action, or anything that is closer than a certain distance....Show more →
I truly respect you taking the time for that detail feedback. It helped make what I was leaning to the option I'm going with - and that is the R3 (as you mentioned, I was likely going to end up there anyway). For the sports I'm covering this gives me the greatest flexibility and options. Thank you again for the feedback.
|
