Gear choice for rugby

M

Multistrada

Suspended / Banned
Messages
12
Edit My Images
No
I've been using a 7D for many years to photograph rugby. The photos end up on our website at 150kb and to the local press at 3mb so there is little point shooting RAW, it's just a lot of hassle. The 7D has been a brilliant camera for my needs except for one aspect, that of low light performance. In the depths of winter on a dull day I may as well not bother. I tend to try and get the shot without blasting away on the high speed burst but do use it occasionally, it's always set up for it at a game. So, given that the reviews say the 7Dmk2 is better but still not great at the high ISO, something my in-shop test supported, I'm leaning towards the 1Dmk4 or 5Dmk3. Cropping is almost always necessary and I found the 5D3 in default JPEG very destructive & waxy on the NR. Accepting that you can turn it off it still seems to apply some level of destructive NR. I'm shooting with a 70-200 f2.8L (non stabilised). I'd be interested in views of these two cameras for the use I put a camera to 90% of the time particularly with a JPEG output. The prices secondhand are similar albeit the Mk4 will inevitably be older and had more use. Thanks folks.
 
the 5dmkIII is full frame.. you will lose x17 focul range (I think the 7d is 1.7?) and when you only have 200 to start with thats not a good idea...

the 1d4 is 1.3 so you save a bit...

its rugby... its a no brainer.. the 1d4 rather than the 5d ...

witht he 1d4 you can shoot iso 3200 without worrying about workign on noice... iso 6400 you can fix with dust/scratches in photoshop or even jsut resizing... I really wouldnt worry about more use.... I sold mine wiht over 200 thousand clicks and the buyer was well happy.. in fact I wish i had kept it now for crciket use..

PS I ahve never owned a 5d3
 
With the sizes that you are displaying (and the fact that the print versions are on newsprint) I'd go for a 7DII - in fact I'm just about to go and collect the one that I've ordered.

Oh and I use a 1DIV and 5DIII as well.
 
I fully accept that point Mark, about where most of the images end up. Some do get printed to 12x8 but rarely any bigger except for the occasional pull up banner but they will inevitably be the ones taken in good light anyway. The problem is that on a dark day in the depths of winter (now) the images look pants at high (ish) ISO levels from 1250 upwards wherever they end up and as blistering as the 7D2 undoubtedly is, the evidence I've seen so far suggests an ISO performance improvement but not the great leap forward that I was hoping for that might take it to within reach of the 1d4 or 5d3. That's a real pity because I had such high hopes that it would solve the problem particularly since my general purpose lens is the EFS 17-55 2.8, so I'm stuck with keeping the 7D as backup anyway which is no bad thing. I'm just not convinced that the high ISO of the 7d2 will cut it but I could be wrong and will be very interested to hear your findings as you are getting one. I do realise that everything you see on the net can't be relied on but I did try one in the shop and the 7d2 was blown away at 8000 as you would expect by the 5d3. No 1d4 to play with. If you don't mind me asking, why are you getting the 7d2 with two such stellar cameras in your bag, reach?
 
If your thinking of going full frame can you afford the reduction in effective focal length? I suspect the answer is no for the application your talking. So if you go full frame you will have to get a teleconverter or a longer fast lens. Sadly a teleconverter will loose you a hole stop so not much help in low light. So unless your willing to invest in new glass full frame is probably not the way to go.
 
Last edited:
From the photos I have seen at high ISO I would go for a 7D2.
 
Multistrada said:
I fully accept that point Mark, about where most of the images end up. Some do get printed to 12x8 but rarely any bigger except for the occasional pull up banner but they will inevitably be the ones taken in good light anyway. The problem is that on a dark day in the depths of winter (now) the images look pants at high (ish) ISO levels from 1250 upwards wherever they end up and as blistering as the 7D2 undoubtedly is, the evidence I've seen so far suggests an ISO performance improvement but not the great leap forward that I was hoping for that might take it to within reach of the 1d4 or 5d3. That's a real pity because I had such high hopes that it would solve the problem particularly since my general purpose lens is the EFS 17-55 2.8, so I'm stuck with keeping the 7D as backup anyway which is no bad thing. I'm just not convinced that the high ISO of the 7d2 will cut it but I could be wrong and will be very interested to hear your findings as you are getting one. I do realise that everything you see on the net can't be relied on but I did try one in the shop and the 7d2 was blown away at 8000 as you would expect by the 5d3. No 1d4 to play with. If you don't mind me asking, why are you getting the 7d2 with two such stellar cameras in your bag, reach?
Click to expand...


Can I suggest that you move to Nikon? If you don't like the images from a 5DIII at medium ISO levels, I doubt that even a 1Dx would make you happy.
 
DemiLion said:
Can I suggest that you move to Nikon? If you don't like the images from a 5DIII at medium ISO levels, I doubt that even a 1Dx would make you happy.
Click to expand...

I was about to suggest the same thing but quickly deleted it for fear of upsetting. It is true though, Nikon do appear to have this low light thing sorted. Even a humble and relatively inexpensive D7100 does a surprisingly good job in low light.
 
Last edited:
Second hand 1D4 will sort you out. Happy shooting at ISO 5000-6400 and you get all the speed and usability of the 1D series.
 
Thanks Andy, that was the kind of helpful reply I was after rather than 'Buy Nikon' . The issue was simply "which of these 3 cameras will suit me best for what I'm doing?" I was leaning towards the 1Dmk4 anyway from net research and talking to a 1DX using wedding photographer. It was simply trying to reconcile the trade off balance between high ISO performance/reach/speed which was the debate. Thank you for your advice.
 
The 1d will still see quite a substantial reduction in your effective focal length. You will be going from 324mm (35mm equivalent) to only 260mm (35mm equivalent). If I was you with the camera you have now try setting your lens at only 160mm and see if that is enough maximum for your application.
 
Last edited:
Multistrada said:
Thanks Andy, that was the kind of helpful reply I was after rather than 'Buy Nikon' . The issue was simply "which of these 3 cameras will suit me best for what I'm doing?" I was leaning towards the 1Dmk4 anyway from net research and talking to a 1DX using wedding photographer. It was simply trying to reconcile the trade off balance between high ISO performance/reach/speed which was the debate. Thank you for your advice.
Click to expand...


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
 
I have a friend that shoots pro games. He swears by a 7D2 and the Sigma 120-300 F2.8
 
I shot youth rugby for years with a 50d and 100-400 and 70-200, so I'd go cropped. I've shot sports with my 5d mk3 but I miss the range of the extra 1.6 crop. I didn't find low light a problem as always shot at the lowest f number for the lens.
 
FlyTVR said:
I have a friend that shoots pro games. He swears by a 7D2 and the Sigma 120-300 F2.8
Click to expand...

The Sigma 120-300 is the perfect lens for the job. I have just seen a nice example with warranty for under £779. Sadly its a Nikon fit so not ideal for this thread. But then again combine it with a used Nikon D700 and you have a great bit of low light kit for a fair bit less then a 5dmk3
 
FlyTVR said:
I have a friend that shoots pro games. He swears by a 7D2 and the Sigma 120-300 F2.8
Click to expand...


You have a friend????????

Yup, I'm using the same combo now for racing and rugby. The closest you can get to my favourite pairing of a 1Dx + 200-400mm for about 1/4 of the cost.
 
I use both versions of the 7D. I can send you some 7D2 pics of rugby on a November afternoon if you want a better test of how well the 7D2 works in low light. Much better tha anything you can do in a shop!
 
DemiLion said:
You have a friend????????

Yup, I'm using the same combo now for racing and rugby. The closest you can get to my favourite pairing of a 1Dx + 200-400mm for about 1/4 of the cost.
Click to expand...

Comments like that will see you having one less friend ;)
 
I use a pair of 1Dmk4's and one has now in excess of 300k and still going strong. ISO is ok up to 6400 and still able to crop into the image. Personally if I was you I'd be looking for a longer lens first and then upgrade the body(s). Most use two lenses 70-200 and 300/400 all f2.8 (IS isnt important for sport). Ive used both 300f2.8 and 400 f2.8 when covering football. As I now have stopped to concentrate on more indoor low light sport I've found the Sigma 120-300 EX DG HSM more versatile and as mentioned could be a better immediate solution for you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top