Hi, I am shooting school events and some indoor junior sports, such as soccer, swimming, ice skating,etc. As an amateur parent, I can not go to too close so I feel my setup too short for these. I am using either 5d IV or 1dx II plus 70-200mm f2.8 II. Here are my options:
1. Get 7d II ($500 Canadian$)
2. Get 1d IV ($400 -$880)
3. Canon 1.4 III ($250)
4. R7 ($1400 used)
5 Sony A6600($1100 used; I also shoot Sony A9 and a7r III with MC-11)
6. Buy sigma 120-300 f2.8 ($1400 OS but not sports)
7. Buy canon 300mm IS I (> $2000)
My top priorities are AF speed and accutare and low light capabilities. Also prefer lower cost.
If you're going with a smaller format, I would avoid options 1 and 2, personally, in favor of option 4, assuming cost is not a factor.
Option 3 (1.4x III) is by far the least expensive choice you have, and it would be fine if you can manage the loss of a stop of light. With AI denoising, it is certainly possible to push the ISO well beyond what we could in the past (assuming you shoot RAW and have access to the right software).
I am not qualified to weigh in on option 5 (Sony gear).
Options 6 and 7 could work, provided you are comfortable with that much lens. Do test the Sigma prior to purchase (or have a return privilege) to ensure that the AF behaves well with your cameras. The need for a little MFA is not an issue--the problem to look for would be lack of any AF consistency.
I owned a 300L IS I for many years. It's great, but you may miss the flexibility of using a zoom.
You have an excellent sports camera in the form of the a9. Unfortunately there are not a lot of fast-ish long lens options in FE mount at lowish cost. I wonder how well AF holds up with adapted EF lenses? I also guess you get a lower frame rate with such a set up? Maybe get the Canon 1.4x TC for your 70-200 and use it on the a9?
jjcpa wrote:
My top priorities are AF speed and accutare and low light capabilities. Also prefer lower cost.
Unfortunately high AF performance in low light is the realm of more expensive cameras and lenses. The higher end cameras drive AF faster and with more precision while faster lenses put more light on the sensor, which helps the AF work better. Naturally this combination is at the opposite end of lower cost....
You can cobble something together with older EF lenses on the used market, but it will only get you so far if your existing cameras are not delivering the performance you want (due to sluggishness, AF inconsistency, etc.). Or you just live with it and accept that a certain keeper rate is better than nothing.
If there is budget, then:
Mirrorless. You already have the a9, but it's low pixel density, so you will need longer glass for it.
High pixel density body. 70-200/2.8Z and RF 1.4x TC. Or the Sony equivalent. Do read the Sony a6600 reviews. A quick skim of DPR's review suggests it can be a frustrating camera to use for fast action. I'd get the R7 instead. But compared to full frame, there will be some high ISO tradeoffs.
Yes, it's $$$$, but this will get better AF performance (speed, precision, consistency) in lower light conditions.
What are you finding are the shortcomings of the 5DIV and/or 1DXII?
The 1DXII was my primary camera for ~6 years. During that time I also tried the 7DII for exactly the reasons you're after: more reach without getting a longer lens. In my case, it was to cover football. While the 7DII on paper was close in performance to the 1DXII, in actual use I did not find that to be the case. It felt sluggish and AF consistency was not good. Here the R7 would be a far superior camera, though it has some limitations for sports coverage. Namely rolling shutter distortion in e-shutter, which means you'd probably be using it in electronic first curtain or fully mechanical shutter modes. But the catch here is that to achieve the full 15fps, and if you will be adapting EF lenses, you have to use the more recent versions of those lenses (roughly released between 2010-2012 and later). The 300/2.8 IS v1 is too old and therefore you'd run into these problems with it. The 300/2.8 IS v2 will work great, but these are a lot more expensive on the used market.
1DIV is 16MP APS-H. This equates to 27MP full frame equivalent. You have slightly higher pixel density with the 5DIV.
My mirrorless transition was from the 1DXII to the R6II. It was a body downgrade in respect to ergonomics but the R6II delivered far better AF consistency, including sustained sequences at 40fps (with the EF 200-400/4). I recently added the R5II and it is noticeably better with respect to AF responsiveness. A reason I added the R5II is its pixel density/reach so that I can use smaller, lighter, shorter lenses in APS-C crop in certain situations, instead of the 200-400 on full frame.
If you can find one, the 200-400 on a lower pixel density FF camera might be a good option. I have used mine on the R6II for youth hockey and have gotten very good results up to the ISO 12800 range and have even used it with its internal 1.4x TC at ISO 25600 in a pinch, and results were usable. But it is a somewhat larger lens... I wonder how well it would adapt to the a9? Perhaps there's a reason I have not seen anyone doing this on the sports sidelines...
thank you both. Lot of reading. My initial response:
A9: I have not tried to adapt 70-200mm on it because I don’t get any reach. 1Dx II does the job well. But I do adapt sigma 40mm and 105mm and it it is fast and accurate like a machine gun. Every image is sharp. But I don’t like the feel of it. Seem lost the soul of photography plus I don’t have that much time pick and each one.
R7: I kind of like Sony for mirrorless so may not expand to another line. I briefly tried RP but no feeling about it. If buying a crop body, may still go with Sony.
1DxII : really like it. Only issue is too short with 70-200mm and not much room to crop. I don’t really mind weight as I don’t carry it too long and mostly stay at one spot. I will test sigma 120-300m f2.8 OS one on sale locally. $1400 is the price I can spend. Even 300mm V1 is over my budget plus as you mentioned, spending over $2000 on an old lens is risky.
The best option is simply picking up a 300 F2.8 lens. That's going to do things that none of your other options will do. It's also one of the most costly, but it's the price you'd have to pay to get a bigger lens.
I wouldn't even think twice about picking up a teleconverter and just trying it out. F4 is still decent, and unless you're really ISO limited should be workable. Of that list the R7 is likely the only route that would offer any benefit in switching bodies, and it still offers less dynamic range than any of your full frames. That's a round about way of saying it's not really going to improve overall image quality, but it will have more resolution because of the more dense sensor.
Option 3 is the place I would start for sure. There's basically nothing to lose by testing the Canon TC III. (Don't get a 3rd party, they are not as good)
jjcpa wrote:
Hi, I am shooting school events and some indoor junior sports, such as soccer, swimming, ice skating,etc. As an amateur parent, I can not go to too close so I feel my setup too short for these. I am using either 5d IV or 1dx II plus 70-200mm f2.8 II. Here are my options:
1. Get 7d II ($500 Canadian$)
2. Get 1d IV ($400 -$880)
3. Canon 1.4 III ($250)
4. R7 ($1400 used)
5 Sony A6600($1100 used; I also shoot Sony A9 and a7r III with MC-11)
6. Buy sigma 120-300 f2.8 ($1400 OS but not sports)
7. Buy canon 300mm IS I (> $2000)
My top priorities are AF speed and accutare and low light capabilities. Also prefer lower cost.
In this situation my choice would be a R7. Used adapted with the 70-200/2.8 II you would have an equivalent 320mm /2.8. In mechanical shutter you would get 15fps, More than sufficient for sports, in my opinion (as a full time sports photographer). Add a 1.4xIII gets you to 448mm.
Option #7 is probably the best one. All versions of Canon's EF 300's are very sharp and all (in my experience) work well with the Canon 1.4x, also, giving you a 420mm F4 lens. Plus it is a lens you can continue to use if you transition over to Canon mirrorless.
There is actually one listed for $1700 right now on the buy/sell boards
I'm another for option 4, as your current adapted EF70-200 2.8 works well with the EF-lll TC's, but if time is not of the essence, I'd wait for the R7 Mark 2 which is expected to have some "major" improvements over the R7.
I would recommend #7 as well. I went thorough this myself several years ago and the 300 2.8 IS was the perfect choice. Compliments the 70-200 very well and also takes extenders for more reach. 5DIV on the 70-200 and a 300 on the 1Dx is a hard combination to beat in the EF world.
The little high school sports I've shot (mostly basketball) I've mostly used 50/1.8 for the 1.8 (80mm ff equivalent) on an aps body. Of course the latest greatest gear gets more shots, but 5DIV & 1DXII sound pretty high end, better than I used. Usually shot on the baseline (look out!) even though didn't have any kids playing, getting photos if they came close
You should be able to get rink side or something using your current gear? The 300/2.8 idea sounds the best of course it's the most expensive Non IS not much cheaper you might run across one though, not sure if IS too useful for sports, maybe it is somehow
Thank you all, quite different suggestions but mainly on R7 or 300mm plus 1.4 iii.
I think I may get 1.4 III used firstly. I will see whether getting R7 around $1699 new or used 300mm version I around $2000. I won’t consider non IS. Even though it is close to ISbut it is focused by wire which I don’t like.
I have used much of the gear you are asking about, and I also shoot HS and younger sports. I personally don't use my R7 indoors anymore. I use FF R6m2 instead to gather more light. The schools that I am in don't have the best lighting.
I do however use both my ef 300mm ii and 70-200mm ii with the 1.4iii teleconverter. I have been very pleased with those combinations at f/4. Using the teleconverter at x1.4 is close to the R7 at x1.6. I would definitely try that first due to the cost.
Edit: I do really still like my R7, but for soccer and other outdoor sports.
5div is good and 1.4x makes it 70-280mm at f4. 5div has good high iso performance and with the use of dxo or LR - this is the best (fast af, good light, good quality).
If you need more reach than that I would consider the 7dii at $500. At higher ISO's its pretty close to r7 in iso performance, with no sensor speed issue and a savings of $1000.
R7 is nice but 5div and 1.4x is better. R7 is expensive and a/f is not great. If you are going to go apsc, wait for the next R7ii but it will be expensive ($3000cdn?). For me the benefit if R7 is 32mpx and apsc but at the disadvantage of slow sensor read speed - which for me make it a great Hail Mary long shooter which you don't need for indoor sports. For sports you will be using efcs to minimize bent sticks and balls because of the slow read speed of electronic.
Personally I think a prime for indoors is not flexible enough.
In OP's first post, they stated that FF (5DIV and 1DXII) with 70-200 is too short for the access they have as a parent/spectator.
7DII AF is outclassed by mirrorless. R7 has certain drawbacks but it has much higher pixel density than 7DII and superior AF, which OP stated as a high priority. Is it as good as R5II, R1? No, but it should at least be as good as the 1DXII.
The original R5 is an interesting option. It's e-shutter scan speed is ~1/60, meaning it is a compromise for certain ball and stick types of sports, but for others, it is viable. There will be rolling shutter distortion, but often it is not noticeable in single frames (without other frames for comparison). If it is a problem, then switch to EFCS. Being 45MP FF, it has decent pixel density for cropping but fewer of the R7 high ISO tradeoffs. 45MP is 17MP APS-C 1.6x Canon crop, which is basically 7DII territory. Yes, 7DII is a lot cheaper, but R5 will outclass it in pretty much every parameter.
I think bottom line is that money does buy something and the more you spend, the more you get. Better AF, better responsiveness, better sensor, better body, lens, etc., etc.
Obviously OP has to draw the line somewhere and the question will be what the best value for that amount of money will be. Without knowing budget, it's difficult to make that assessment. The EF 1.4x v3 is a good low cost, low risk first move.
@jjcpa: what's the problem with 300/2.8 non-IS focus by wire? Age, reliability, repairability? IS v1 is not in a much different situation, IMO. Both are old and no longer supported by Canon. The non-IS will make a cheaper doorstop once it fails. And for shooting sports action, you won't use IS anyway. Especially not v1 IS which is only good for ~2 stops when static and will fight every sudden movement you make to keep up with an erratic moving subject (based on first-hand use of this generation of lenses covering sports), resulting in odd image ghosting effects. Unless it's a static situation, it's best to turn IS off. Both also have the same downsides on mirrorless (slow EFCS frame rates). IBIS with the non-IS might even be better than the IS v1, though IBIS drastically loses effectiveness the longer the telephoto focal length.
I will get 1.4 III firstly and will try couple events.
If still short, my next choice will be 300mm IS and may try 7d II.
On my local facebook, $1500 for non IS and $2000 for IS. Both like new conditions. But still want to stay away from focus by wire. 3 reasons
1. No feeling for manual focus if needed
2. You have to turn on camera to use it
3. Easily broke (I heard)
Thank you all
Scott Stoness wrote:
If I were you I would get the 1.4x at $250.
5div is good and 1.4x makes it 70-280mm at f4. 5div has good high iso performance and with the use of dxo or LR - this is the best (fast af, good light, good quality).
If you need more reach than that I would consider the 7dii at $500. At higher ISO's its pretty close to r7 in iso performance, with no sensor speed issue and a savings of $1000.
R7 is nice but 5div and 1.4x is better. R7 is expensive and a/f is not great. If you are going to go apsc, wait for the next R7ii but it will be expensive ($3000cdn?). For me the benefit if R7 is 32mpx and apsc but at the disadvantage of slow sensor read speed - which for me make it a great Hail Mary long shooter which you don't need for indoor sports. For sports you will be using efcs to minimize bent sticks and balls because of the slow read speed of electronic.
Personally I think a prime for indoors is not flexible enough....Show more →
rscheffler wrote:
In OP's first post, they stated that FF (5DIV and 1DXII)
The original R5 is an interesting option. It's e-shutter scan speed is ~1/60, meaning it is a compromise for certain ball and stick types of sports, but for others, it is viable.
Maybe it's just me, but I don't think the OP needs to think about Electronic Shutter. They are using two mirror slappers right now, and the default setting of electronic first curtain shutter (EFCS) on the R5 is practically silent compared to a DSLR.
And for shooting sports action, you won't use IS anyway. Especially not v1 IS which is only good for ~2 stops when static and will fight every sudden movement you make to keep up with an erratic moving subject (based on first-hand use of this generation of lenses covering sports), resulting in odd image ghosting effects. Unless it's a static situation, it's best to turn IS off. Both also have the same downsides on mirrorless (slow EFCS frame rates). IBIS with the non-IS might even be better than the IS v1, though IBIS drastically loses effectiveness the longer the telephoto focal length.