1D Mk IIN general performance question

antonroland

antonroland

Inspector Gadget
Suspended / Banned
Messages
4,210
Name
Anton
Edit My Images
Yes
Did some night cricket over the weekend and deliberately pushed all the limits...shot at 3200 ISO with a 70-200/2.8 and 2x converter which gave me a best f/5.6.

I eventually shot at shutter speed 1/320 (Manual) which was too slow but that kept the light meter at spot on to no more than 1/3 below.

Now I am fully aware that that lens combo is not the ideal but I am just curious as to whether I should not rather have kept the shutter at 1/500 or 1/640 and fixed the 1 stop underexposure in RAW?

Or preferably buy a 400/2.8:D:D

Any takers?

Will hopefully have one or two more games to play and experiment with as the final is on the 20th of this month and hopefully in our town:D
 
Hmmm, :thinking: , now I used to have MKIIn as main mainbody until few weeks ago. And I think it can handle the ISO3200 (depending on the intended end use of image, of course).
So my first choice from your list would be to buy the nice 400mm 2.8 - but that might be a slight financial issue to almost everyone.

Maybe I would just try to live with the slightly slower shutter speed, instead of trying to under expose and then recover it in PP. I think the ISO 3200 is already such a max out of that camera, IMHO, so to try to bump that still up in PP sounds a step too much.

But it would be nice to see some of the shots you took last night, as to see what they look like.
 
Cheers GooGaBu and thanks for the reply

Will post some later in the day, just a bit tied up right now...
 
GooGaBu said:
Hmmm, :thinking: , now I used to have MKIIn as main mainbody until few weeks ago. And I think it can handle the ISO3200 (depending on the intended end use of image, of course).
So my first choice from your list would be to buy the nice 400mm 2.8 - but that might be a slight financial issue to almost everyone.

Maybe I would just try to live with the slightly slower shutter speed, instead of trying to under expose and then recover it in PP. I think the ISO 3200 is already such a max out of that camera, IMHO, so to try to bump that still up in PP sounds a step too much.

But it would be nice to see some of the shots you took last night, as to see what they look like.
Click to expand...

Sound advice there mate :thumbs: Trying to recover even a third of a stop in post from an ISO 3200 on a MKIIn isn't going to look pretty, the general rule is to try to over expose but I know how hard this can be when faced with difficult circumstances.

A new camera you say? Have you been treating oneself? :D

T.
 
antonroland said:
Cheers GooGaBu and thanks for the reply

Will post some later in the day, just a bit tied up right now...
Click to expand...

I on the other hand will try to check up on your post later on tonight (will be working myself then...)
 
OK

Here are the jpegs...please bear in mind that I shot simultaneous RAW + jpeg small so jpegs are only about 2 Mp to start off with.

ADK7218_FULL.jpg


JPEG cropped 300 x 300px block at 100%

ADK7218.jpg



Now for the RAW files...

O.K.
Obviously bigger than 300 x 300px, about 600 x 600 px to get the same portion of image from the larger original image

ADK7218.jpg


Looks like I'm making a complete &^%$# -up of it now let's see... Here is the full size RAW cropped to 800 x 533 and "save for web"

ADK7218_exRAW.jpg
 
The noise levels at ISO 3200 are impressive indeed!
 
I played with Arno Jacobs (bald head running towards you) and Johan Botha a couple of years ago, nice blokes.

Looks like you pulled it off regarding the light.
 
Gents (and ladies?)

Sorted now, sorry for the inconvenience...

EXIF data:Manual mode, 1/320 shutter, 3200 ISO, 70-200 (AT 200) + 2X GIVING F/5.6

Let me know if there is anything more you would like to know.

Cheers all and thanks for the inputs:thumbs::thumbs:
 
Id look at getting a different zoom where a 2xTC isnt needed, like the 100-400 f4L
Should give you better IQ and means you can shoot at F4 and not 5.6 :thumbs:
 
The 100-400L is f5.6 at 400mm though isn't it?
 
Is it, ignore me then, thought it was f4 through the range
 
What about a Sigma 120-300 2.8 plus a 1.4xTC giving 420mm f4 if i'm not mistaken for less than half the £5200 400mm 2.8 will cost
 
ppp said:
What about a Sigma 120-300 2.8 plus a 1.4xTC giving 420mm f4 if i'm not mistaken for less than half the £5200 400mm 2.8 will cost
Click to expand...

Personally I'd rather save the cash for a 400mm f2.8, it's the daddy of sports lenses and if you think that there's even a slight sniff of the chance that you may go down that route in future then you'll end up saving in the long run. Maybe consider some second hand options.

Above all, try Stewart at www.lensesforhire.co.uk, you can hire the lenses for a fantastic rate and see what suits you best. If I still lived in the UK, I would never think of buying a telephoto prime, I'd just hire them from Stew all the time. A Nikon 400 2.8 is near to 10,000 euro here, not the kind of dough you'd spend unless you absolutely had to and used that kind of lens all the time.

For me, There's no substitute for a good prime for sports really, if you shoot Canon then use a Canon 2.8, if you shoot Nikon then use a Nikon 2.8

I love Sigma lenses but I don't ever reach for one if I'm relying on AF speed and AF accuracy. Sigma just can't match the performance of proprietary lenses IMO, always slower and always hunting.

I know it's a lot of cash but half the dough spent is half the dough saved. ;) but better still, hire hire hire!

I'd love to have the chance to hire lenses here but they are so behind the times with rentals, the charge for one days hire is 10%!, in ten days you would have paid for the damn thing, I can't believe that anyone would do it!
 
Ive got the ef 400mm L IS F/2.8 and its the most stunning lens on sale today, however what most people fail to realise about longer focal length lenses is that thay allow less light in, i would say ive lost something like a full stop moving up from the 300mm f/2.8 which isnt great when shooting at night or under floods.
 
Gary Coyle said:
Ive got the ef 400mm L IS F/2.8 and its the most stunning lens on sale today, however what most people fail to realise about longer focal length lenses is that thay allow less light in, i would say ive lost something like a full stop moving up from the 300mm f/2.8 which isnt great when shooting at night or under floods.
Click to expand...

I betcha wouldn't trade it in for something else though wouldja?

Night time or floods is always going to be difficult circs.

Just looked at your web pages Gary, nice work :thumbs:
 
Thanks Thomas, youre right i wouldnt trade it, well i dont think so.

Unfortunatly ive had to make other sacrifices to get it, ive got 2 1D series bodies, a MKIII and a MKII-N but for now as far as sports shooting goes 1 is relativly useless as i dont own a 70-200mm f/2.8 to put on it although i can get away with my 24-105 f/4 if the conditions are right.

I have a little bit of Rhumatism (sp) in both elbows and it is very heavy and on the odd occasion i have thought of trading it for a 300mm f/2.8 L IS and a 70-200mm F/2.8 L IS but then i think about the Cricket season and theres no way a 300 with an extender can come close to the 400
 
Gary Coyle said:
but then i think about the Cricket season and theres no way a 300 with an extender can come close to the 400
Click to expand...

I have heard (but yet to see it for myself) that the 300/2.8 is about the only lens that performs flawlessly with either 1.4 or 2x

If this is true and you say the 400 is still better then the 400 must really be awesome.
 
ISO levels at your shots are pretty good, but you do seem to be shooting from a distance. So you were struggling for reach a bit ?

Suppose what route you will go on from here pretty much depends on your use for these photos and your budget for camera gear.
I am sure you would enjoy having both 300mm and 400mm in your bag.. but you would have to be making some serious money to even buy one of these beasts.

I used teh Sigma 120-300 last summer for football, and sure it isn't as fast as teh primes. But it is a darn good lens for the money you pay for it!! :thumbs:
Plus, I enjoy having the freedom of the zoom - and I never heard any of my clients complain that the photos were not sharp enough or good enough quality.
I even tried the Sigma with 1.4 TC and it did perform OK - so I would consider that option as well..

But as for the examples images you posted, they really are good for the lens/TC combo you are using.

By they way, what do these shots look like after running them through NoiseNinja or other such software??
 
I was considering NN at some stage but decided against it when I heard some say that NN can produce very strange looking effects when it isn't used correctly.

What are your thoughts on that?

My problem down here is that everything is about 10-15x the asking price you guys pay as the ZA Rand is fairly weak against the U$, GBP and Euro.

To give you an example, the 400/2.8 will set me back about ZA R 80 000.00 BUT then that is roughly equal to just a bit more than 6x my gross monthly salary...

Cheers
 
antonroland said:
I was considering NN at some stage but decided against it when I heard some say that NN can produce very strange looking effects when it isn't used correctly.

What are your thoughts on that?

My problem down here is that everything is about 10-15x the asking price you guys pay as the ZA Rand is fairly weak against the U$, GBP and Euro.

To give you an example, the 400/2.8 will set me back about ZA R 80 000.00 BUT then that is roughly equal to just a bit more than 6x my gross monthly salary...

Cheers
Click to expand...

I've used NN on images and find the preview window pretty good while editing the photo. And yes, if you use it too harshly it does give some odd bits to the photo. But the trick is to start using it 'moderately' and keep increasing the level until it does not improve the photo anymore.
So I for one do not have any problems in recommending NN to you...

Of course you still need the original image to be of decent quality and sharp.

The 400mm is rather expensive and would you be ready to spend half a years wages for it??
SO - either just keep going with the gear you have at the moment (the photo you posted is fine in the web-size), save for few years to get the 400mm, or I still give a vote to 120-300 (but maybe give it a try before choosing it).
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Is it, ignore me then, thought it was f4 through the range
Click to expand...

No worries!:thumbs:

If it was I would consider it. This lens is one of those I have had just too much to say about and would never live it down if I bought one...;)

(Which would never happen for various other reasons...)
 
Club cricket under floodlights is a nightmare! The ones I took last season (link below) were taken in summer when we had around 20 minutes of decent natural lights before the diesel powered, low level floods dominated the scene. I also shot this match in RAW and tried to pull them out of the mire in post processing, Neat Image being my preferred noise reducer. I was using a 400mm f/2.8 at ISO 1600/3200 and dipping as low as 1/250th as some of the shots show!

A ground lit by floodlights always look better to the eye than to the camera - everything seems bright to the eye as the surroundings are so dark - players and spectators can never understand why the quality of photographs under floods isn't as good or better than that under natural summer sunlight. The fast shutter speeds needed for Cricket are simply not achievable under the lights I have been asked to work under. Even floodlights in many of our (lower league) Football grounds leave a lot to be desired by the action photographer.

Best advise is - enjoy it, get as much light as you can into your lens, shoot raw and don't necessarily go for action shots - go for fielders under relatively good light looking for the catch, batters in conference between balls, batters doing a practice shot or holding a pose after a miss or cover drive, appeals to the umpire - the candid "people" shots rather than those of the fast swing bowler or the mighty heave ho for six.

http://www.rydersonline.co.uk/BuryElton/index.html

Alan
 
Alzibiff said:
Club cricket under floodlights is a nightmare! The ones I took last season (link below) were taken in summer when we had around 20 minutes of decent natural lights before the diesel powered, low level floods dominated the scene. I also shot this match in RAW and tried to pull them out of the mire in post processing, Neat Image being my preferred noise reducer. I was using a 400mm f/2.8 at ISO 1600/3200 and dipping as low as 1/250th as some of the shots show!

A ground lit by floodlights always look better to the eye than to the camera - everything seems bright to the eye as the surroundings are so dark - players and spectators can never understand why the quality of photographs under floods isn't as good or better than that under natural summer sunlight. The fast shutter speeds needed for Cricket are simply not achievable under the lights I have been asked to work under. Even floodlights in many of our (lower league) Football grounds leave a lot to be desired by the action photographer.

Best advise is - enjoy it, get as much light as you can into your lens, shoot raw and don't necessarily go for action shots - go for fielders under relatively good light looking for the catch, batters in conference between balls, batters doing a practice shot or holding a pose after a miss or cover drive, appeals to the umpire - the candid "people" shots rather than those of the fast swing bowler or the mighty heave ho for six.

http://www.rydersonline.co.uk/BuryElton/index.html

Alan
Click to expand...

Deffo agree with floodlit game looking better to eye than camera but with long enough f/2.8 lens I should have no problem with shutter speeds up to about 1/1000 or even 1/250 if I underexposed the meter reading bt 1/3 stop(or whatever the closest is in 1/3 stops) on that field.

I think that should be fast enough...I should maybe also just mention that they play O.D.I. matches on that pitch, St Georges Sahara Oval or whatever it is called this season...:thumbs:

Also the saturation can be bumped up to get it more pleasing, I was simply too lazy to do it yet as these pix were purely a trial run to see exactly how horrible the 70-200 with 2x would be...
 
antonroland said:
I have heard (but yet to see it for myself) that the 300/2.8 is about the only lens that performs flawlessly with either 1.4 or 2x

If this is true and you say the 400 is still better then the 400 must really be awesome.
Click to expand...

Ive owned 4 300mm L IS F/2.8 lenses and borrowed 3 times as many and non, and i mean none are anywhere near as good as the 400mm, its quite simply the best lens ever made apart from the 200mm f/1.8

The only ones who will tell you the 300 is the best are those who have never tried a good 400mm

However, im only speaking about image quality, the 300 does have advantages, weight and the fact that it lets in more light are the 2 i can think of.
 
Gents (and ladies?)

I need some clarity on this...maybe today is just my thick day...

As far as I understand it the 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 should surely let in the same amount of light (:shrug::shrug:)

I base this on the belief that, as the 400 barrel is longer it should surely be bigger in diameter than the 300 to allow f/2.8's worth of light in over any specific amount of time...

Please help me to understand this...
 
An increase in focal length equals a decrease in light onto the sensor.

Think about it logically, a 24mm lens is looking at a much larger area than say a 300mm lens and its also sucking in light from the larger area.
 
Gary Coyle said:
An increase in focal length equals a decrease in light onto the sensor.

Think about it logically, a 24mm lens is looking at a much larger area than say a 300mm lens and its also sucking in light from the larger area.
Click to expand...

My head is not quite up to much physics today but I think Anton is bang on to question that one. f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of focal length, as far as the sensor/film is concerned.

Of course the size of the front element required to collect enough light for that aperture is vastly different on a 24mm lens to that needed for 400mm.

I had the same thoughts as Anton but I figured perhaps the person taking about the 300/400 comparison was not talking about a pair of f2.8 lenses?? :shrug:
 
Think about a cricketer at the crease and two photographers with identical cameras on the boundary. Tog one has a 300mm f/2.8 lens and tog two has a 400mm f/2.8 lens. Now... tog number one is going to see much more of the scene than tog two and therefore will have more light on his sensor. If tog two fills the frame with Mr. Batsman, tog one will have some background as well as Mr. Batsman and assuming that the background is not totally black - there is going to be more light coming in.

If they are joined by tog three with a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a similar body - think about how much light is falling on the sensor in his camera - quite a bit more - yes?

Does that about sum it up?

Alan
 
Alzibiff said:
Does that about sum it up?

Alan
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying but none of it will have the slightest affect on the exposure required for mr cricketer. :)
 
...none of it will have the slightest affect on the exposure required for mr cricketer.
Click to expand...

Absolutely - the key word here being "required" as if we meter properly, the scene is evenly lit and we define the exposure according to the light INCIDENT on the subject, the exposure is independent of the subject.

However .... if we use the camera's meter which measures light reflected from the subject, it could be that all three togs end up with different exposure values.

For example, (sorry ... here we go again), if our tog with the 400mm lens just sees the white shirt of our batsman, tog with the 300mm lens sees the white shirt and a patch of dark cloudy sky and the tog with the 24mm lens sees the white cricketer, his mates, the green pitch and the dark cloudy sky - as each scene is different, the "reflected light" meter in the camera will most likely recommend a different exposure value in each case.

:)

(am I getting too pedantic now - guess I am as in practice it is all much easier than this suggests it really is).

Alan
(I'll shut up now!)
 
Alzibiff said:
Think about a cricketer at the crease and two photographers with identical cameras on the boundary. Tog one has a 300mm f/2.8 lens and tog two has a 400mm f/2.8 lens. Now... tog number one is going to see much more of the scene than tog two and therefore will have more light on his sensor. If tog two fills the frame with Mr. Batsman, tog one will have some background as well as Mr. Batsman and assuming that the background is not totally black - there is going to be more light coming in.

If they are joined by tog three with a 24mm f/2.8 lens on a similar body - think about how much light is falling on the sensor in his camera - quite a bit more - yes?

Does that about sum it up?

Alan
Click to expand...

Yes, but the physical aperture of the 400mm lens is bigger than that of the 300mm lens, so it lets in more light anyway. In comparison, the physical aperture of the 24mm lens is absolutely miniscule.
 
lets put it this way based on my experience

I have owned a 300 2.8 and a 400 2.8 at the same time, i put both on exactly the same bodies shooting in aperture priority and wide open, i set both cameras exactly the same with regard aperture and ISO and pointed then both at exactly the same scene (a static rugby player) yet the 300 gave me a shutter speed of 1/640th sec and the 400 gave me 1/400th sec.
 
Gary Coyle said:
lets put it this way based on my experience

I have owned a 300 2.8 and a 400 2.8 at the same time, i put both on exactly the same bodies shooting in aperture priority and wide open, i set both cameras exactly the same with regard aperture and ISO and pointed then both at exactly the same scene (a static rugby player) yet the 300 gave me a shutter speed of 1/640th sec and the 400 gave me 1/400th sec.
Click to expand...


Differences in framing were mentioned earlier and I imagine that this is what's causing the effect you see.
 
F2.8 is F2.8 regardless of the focal length of the lens and regardless of how big(wide) those respective apertures actually are.

If you viewed the same scene with two f2.8 lenses of differing focal lengths then it depends which metering method you use as to whether you get identical exposures or not.

If you spot meter on the same tone with each lens then F2.8 should give you an identical shutter speed in each case.

Any other metering mode is likely to show a difference depending on the angle of the view and whether the average of the tones is lighter or darker when viewed through the different lenses.
 
I think you need to spot meter on the same tone Gary.

Full frame average metering - just mixes all the tones in the scene down to 18% grey. If there's a difference in angle of view the average is almost certain to differ.

Evaluative or Matrix metering takes readings from numerous points in the scene and then consults the camera processor to decide the best exposure. Again differing angles of view will likely give a different result.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top