need advice
Oct 25, 2011 12:28:28 #
I want to do some serious sports photography, football and swimming meets. I also like to shoot faces and landscapes around the world.
My current equipment is a Nikon D90 and assorted lenses for super wide angle and micro - my all-purpose travel lens is a Nikon 28-300mm.
I was going to step up to a Nikon D3s and purchase a Nikon 70-200mm, f 2.8 but then I read that although the D3s is really a great camera it is full frame camera and supposedly it will cut down focal distance I get out of the 70-200mm.
I am now considering keeping my D90 and current lenses but also developing a new package of Canon equipment, such as the Canon EOS 7D SLR Digital Camera along with their telephoto lenses. I really need some input as to which brands Nikon or Canon and which lenses would be most compatible for my goals.
Any suggestions?? Thank you, J Cool
My current equipment is a Nikon D90 and assorted lenses for super wide angle and micro - my all-purpose travel lens is a Nikon 28-300mm.
I was going to step up to a Nikon D3s and purchase a Nikon 70-200mm, f 2.8 but then I read that although the D3s is really a great camera it is full frame camera and supposedly it will cut down focal distance I get out of the 70-200mm.
I am now considering keeping my D90 and current lenses but also developing a new package of Canon equipment, such as the Canon EOS 7D SLR Digital Camera along with their telephoto lenses. I really need some input as to which brands Nikon or Canon and which lenses would be most compatible for my goals.
Any suggestions?? Thank you, J Cool
Oct 25, 2011 13:32:57 #
Oct 25, 2011 20:58:31 #
What kind of football, Pop Warner or NFL? Are you male or female, weak, strong, any physical considerations?
Full frame doesn't cut down focal distance - focal distance is what it is rated to be. It's just that the 7D is a crop sensor camera and you would need to multiply the focal distance by 1.6 which would make your 70-200 to be 320 on the long end. We've just had a long discussion about the 7D v. 5D MkII. You may not be able to find a better comparison than you can read about here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-6317-1.html
Let me just add that I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and a 400 f5.6L non IS and I have shot semipro games with both and the 400 on a 1.6 sensor will push you to the opposite end of the field to get very much in the frame. See included image shot from the opposite end zone with a 1.6 sensor as the runner was about to cross the goal line.
Full frame doesn't cut down focal distance - focal distance is what it is rated to be. It's just that the 7D is a crop sensor camera and you would need to multiply the focal distance by 1.6 which would make your 70-200 to be 320 on the long end. We've just had a long discussion about the 7D v. 5D MkII. You may not be able to find a better comparison than you can read about here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-6317-1.html
Let me just add that I have the 70-200 2.8L IS and a 400 f5.6L non IS and I have shot semipro games with both and the 400 on a 1.6 sensor will push you to the opposite end of the field to get very much in the frame. See included image shot from the opposite end zone with a 1.6 sensor as the runner was about to cross the goal line.
Oct 25, 2011 21:03:41 #
Same runner later shot with 5D MkII, 70-200 2.8L IS
If I remember correctly, swimming occurs a little slower than football. The 7D shoots 8fps while the 5D MkII shoots 3.9fps.
The 5D MkII image can be cropped down to match the size of the 1.6 sensor in the 7D and it is difficult to tell the two apart, hence giving you back the focal range loss by shooting with a 1.6 sensor. The 5D MkII is about to see an upgrade to 5D MkIII and may have better fps, etc., to go with the full sensor. If you are familiar with shooting those sports and can time your shots or work with the slower fps, you can currently pay almost twice as much money for the 5D MkII than the 7D. My 5D MkII works well with a 1.4x "doubler" with a little loss of contrast which can be regained in post processing. The 1.4x costs you 1 f-stop of light so your 70-200 2.8L IS becomes an f4 but with IS, good for allowing you to open up as much as 3 stops to boost your shutter speed. ISO on the 7D goes to 12,800 and the 5D MkII goes to 25,600. Both cameras will go up to about 1600 iso with doable noise which can be managed in post processing. Both of the two shots I included were shot at night with no flash.
If I remember correctly, swimming occurs a little slower than football. The 7D shoots 8fps while the 5D MkII shoots 3.9fps.
The 5D MkII image can be cropped down to match the size of the 1.6 sensor in the 7D and it is difficult to tell the two apart, hence giving you back the focal range loss by shooting with a 1.6 sensor. The 5D MkII is about to see an upgrade to 5D MkIII and may have better fps, etc., to go with the full sensor. If you are familiar with shooting those sports and can time your shots or work with the slower fps, you can currently pay almost twice as much money for the 5D MkII than the 7D. My 5D MkII works well with a 1.4x "doubler" with a little loss of contrast which can be regained in post processing. The 1.4x costs you 1 f-stop of light so your 70-200 2.8L IS becomes an f4 but with IS, good for allowing you to open up as much as 3 stops to boost your shutter speed. ISO on the 7D goes to 12,800 and the 5D MkII goes to 25,600. Both cameras will go up to about 1600 iso with doable noise which can be managed in post processing. Both of the two shots I included were shot at night with no flash.
Oct 25, 2011 21:48:23 #
Will just add one more thing - for landscape the 5D MkII sensor allows a much wider field of view as the 7D is much more restrictive on the sides. Faces probably better with the 5D MkII since it's more geared to portrait and landscape while the 7D is allegedly geared to action.
Oct 26, 2011 00:11:46 #
Oct 26, 2011 12:21:00 #
thank you gessman, really appreciate you reply. sports interest because of my son, high school level but i would like my photos on your level, at least that is my goal. i have good strength.
just purchased for try out nikon 70x200---2.8 , and haved ordered a 2x enhancer. did brief comparative shots today against my 28x300--3.5. inside non flash photos with 70x200 as good or better than outside cloud cover day with 28x300, but of course better on distance shots..
purshased 28x300 as all around travel lens as i do not like to carry a lot of gear abd as i mentioned i like to take head shots of children especially with mothers, asian natives and landscapes. in january i hope to go back to india and possibly bangladesh. i hope we chatagain,
just purchased for try out nikon 70x200---2.8 , and haved ordered a 2x enhancer. did brief comparative shots today against my 28x300--3.5. inside non flash photos with 70x200 as good or better than outside cloud cover day with 28x300, but of course better on distance shots..
purshased 28x300 as all around travel lens as i do not like to carry a lot of gear abd as i mentioned i like to take head shots of children especially with mothers, asian natives and landscapes. in january i hope to go back to india and possibly bangladesh. i hope we chatagain,
Oct 26, 2011 13:15:35 #
jcool wrote:
thank you gessman, really appreciate you reply. sp... (show quote)
Sounds like the Nikon gear you have should serve you well. It gets a little heavy after 3 hours or so holding it up to your eye to get that perfect sports shot which is the reason I asked about strength. I'm 75 with some physical problems and it gets to wearing on me pretty good during a ball game.
I can't see any reason why you can't get the shots you want with the equipment you have. Good luck with it. Put up some shots for us to see here.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.