I think you got a very good deal.

Quote:

---

my arms are kind of sore (heavy) but it was heaven on earth.

Pairing the 70-200 2.8 to it felt so much better in my hands than the small plasticky 60D.

---

Grab a monopod. You'll get better shots and be less tired.

The 5d/II is certainly a good option, but I wouldn't hesitate to use the original 5D, especially if you can get one for $300. You can still get great images as long as you don't expect it to have the low light capabilities more recent vintages have -- as well as the lack of video on it. There may also be software use limitations but you can still do RAW conversions on the files. If funds are not an issue, that's one thing but don't diss equipment SOLELY due to its age.

If all I had was a couple of 5D's, I could still produce a good wedding or corporate portfolio, just like I think I could capture a lot of great sports shots with a 1D Mk IIn.

Skip the monopod on a 70-200 unless you are just really weak. It isn't that heavy and you don't need the stabilization when you are shooting over 1/800th a second to shoot sports.

Guitarsoup said:

---

Skip the monopod on a 70-200 unless you are just really weak. It isn't that heavy and you don't need the stabilization when you are shooting over 1/800th a second to shoot sports.

---

Yeah, I don't think I would use a monopod. It wasn't bad since I'm not holding it up the entire time and I sling it so the set up is very effective for me. Obviously coming from a 60D was an adjustment.

Judging from the type of venues we play at, a monopod might be more of an inconvenience because of space limitations (lots of crazy parents like me).

Only negative so far (which isn't much of one) is I need to buy regular SDHC cards since SDXC doesn't work. Not sure if there is an advantage to use CF cards instead?

CF cards are generally faster for the same price. There might be a limit on how big of a CF card the 1D3 can take. I know 32GIG will work, I think 64GIG will work.

I put ~500k clicks on my 1D3 without a problem.

I even stopped using a monopod with a 200 f2 or 300 2.8 unless I was going to be shooting at really slow shutter speeds. I like the freedom to move anywhere I wanted quickly and easily and that isn't as easy on a monopod.

I also don't use a monopod on my 400 2.8 to shoot basketball. Get a camping chair and rest your elbow on your leg.

Guitarsoup said:

---

The 5D2 can be had well under $1k. Better sensor, same AF, 3-4 years newer.

---

I sold my beloved flawless OEM gripped 5D2 with 16,000 shutter actuation for $750 and paid shipping.

Oh well, that's how it goes with DSLR bodies.

But OH MAN... 50.6 MP 5DSR is a beast. Unbelievable picture quality....

flintdragon said:

---

I went ahead and picked up the 1D Mark III on Friday and shot with it all weekend at a volleyball tournament. It came with two batteries and the dual charger. Shot about 600 pics with so many keepers due to the 10 fps.

Didn't try to mess around with the settings much and my arms are kind of sore (heavy) but it was heaven on earth.

Pairing the 70-200 2.8 to it felt so much better in my hands than the small plasticky 60D.

Also, my girl's team played wonderfully so was awesome to be able to capture some of those moments for the team and parents!

---

You done good man!

AggieDruggist89 said:

---

MBAR said:

---

flintdragon said:

---

Have any tips on taking indoor volleyball shots as far as settings go? I've read other blogs about it but my picture always seem not a sharp and also more grainy. Obviously lighting sucks indoors but the place I was at last weekend was ok lit.

Canon 60D - seems to be grainy at ISO 1600+
Canon 70-200 2.8 non-IS

The settings I've been using on full manual: 1/1000 SS, 2.8, 1600-2000 ISO.

---

A couple of things here:

-Shooting the lens wide open is great for letting in light, but you're not going to maximize sharpness so you're going to get softer pictures. Try stopping down a bit here.

---

Let's do a test. I'm a firm believer in shooting wide open as the lens allows unless I don't want the bokeh, like landscape or when I want a bit more DOF. These pictures are taken with a Canon 1.6x body with 70-200mm f2.8 lens tripod mounted at 70mm, 135mm, and 200mm at f2.8 and f8. I know many believe that lenses are sharper between f8 to f11.. but from my anecdotal experience.. not always and even if they are, I don't know that it's that evident. Can you tell which pictures were taken at f2.8 vs. f8? I put this test up because for indoor sporting events, if you have a lens like 70-200mm f2.8, I say shoot it wide open as faster shutter speed is more crucial than the aperture. Just an opinion.

Test1

Test 2

Test 3

Test 4

Test 5

Test 6

---

4 weeks and none of y'all took the challenge!! Many modern lenses are sharp wide open!

schmendeler said:

---

haven't read the whole thread, but I'm very much looking forward to the forthcoming Fuji X100F. I haven't used my DSLR since I got my used X100S. really love that camera.

---

preordered the X100F last night. super excited about it.

if you're interested, here's a really long but really detailed review.

http://f16.click/gear/fujifilm-x100f-review.html

No more questions?

Guitarsoup said:

---

No more questions?

---

Love following the thread. I made the jump to the Nikon D500 from the Canon 6d and 7dmkii and couldn't be happier. That dynamic range, damn. Also enjoying the sharpness without the AA filter and the buffer with xQD cards is ridiculous.

What focus mode are you using on the Nikon system? I'm mostly shooting the kids running around in the back yard and the occasional football game from my lower level seats for fun. I've been playing around with single point and dynamic modes for more sporadic motion. But tonight started messing around with the 3d tracking with face tracking turned on, not bad. My main concern is getting the eyes in focus.

Obviously single point is great for stationary subjects, but I'm curious what you've been using for your sports photography and your methods for aiming your focus points.

I use AF-C for most of my work, but switch to the more accurate AF-S for lower light situations that aren't sports.

I do one main point with the outside helper points for the focus.

Great little camera for $1800.

Question:

Shooting 3 gun pics on Sunday.

Help me choose a lens.

For you timelapse folks, what sort of plug in or whatever do you use on day/night timelapses to adjust for the color temperature? Also, see if you can convince Guitarsoup to sell me his 45mm T/S for $780 so I can feel like I won the negotiations

bthotugigem05 said:

---

For you timelapse folks, what sort of plug in or whatever do you use on day/night timelapses to adjust for the color temperature? Also, see if you can convince Guitarsoup to sell me his 45mm T/S for $780 so I can feel like I won the negotiations

---

maybe he'll lower the price for "exposure" on the blog.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

For you timelapse folks, what sort of plug in or whatever do you use on day/night timelapses to adjust for the color temperature? Also, see if you can convince Guitarsoup to sell me his 45mm T/S for $780 so I can feel like I won the negotiations

---

The day/night stuff that I've shot I just edit separately in light room. I'll edit my day light frames first, then portions of the sunset, then the night ones as a group. I've only done a few sunset time lapses though and I didn't really care for any them greatly.

I think I'm going to jump onboard the 6d train. Most of my shooting is done on either storms or landscapes and both seem better suited to the 6d. I'm just leery to buy right now due to the impending release of the 6d Mark II but if I wait then I'll not have it for this entire storm chasing season which doesn't seem to make it worth waiting.

She's talking about shots like this but wants shallower DOF.

Guitarsoup said:

---

For a shallower focal length, you want the longest lens and the biggest aperture possible (smallest aperture number.)

longer focal length = blurrier background
Wider aperture (smaller number such as f/2.8 or f2) = blurrier background
Closer to subject = blurrier background
Subject further from background = blurrier background

---

My only concern with the 70-200 is that i might not be able to get far enough away to keep all/most of the shooter in the frame.

The pic above was the 24-105.

Mr. Dubi said:

---

She's talking about shots like this but wants shallower DOF.

---

ah, gotcha.

MBAR said:

---

I think I'm going to jump onboard the 6d train. Most of my shooting is done on either storms or landscapes and both seem better suited to the 6d. I'm just leery to buy right now due to the impending release of the 6d Mark II but if I wait then I'll not have it for this entire storm chasing season which doesn't seem to make it worth waiting.

---

I have a 6D and really like it. I know it was kind of bashed earlier in this thread, but for what I use it for it works great and for a lot less money than a more capable camera. I use it mainly for time lapses, landscapes, and low light shooting. It doesn't have a fancy focus system, but the center focus point will focus in extremely low light quite well. For high speed/action photography, I have another body for that. The combo came in handy when I went to Big Bend last year. While looking for landscapes, I was ready when a wildlife opportunity came up suddenly without having to scramble to change lenses.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

For you timelapse folks, what sort of plug in or whatever do you use on day/night timelapses to adjust for the color temperature? Also, see if you can convince Guitarsoup to sell me his 45mm T/S for $780 so I can feel like I won the negotiations

---

If you shoot using the RAW format instead of JPG you can change the WB to whatever value you like in post. I do that in Lightroom.
Save

I shoot in RAW, just wondering if there are any programs I'm missing that can gradually change the WB on a few hundred pictures to handle the day to night transition.

bthotugigem05 said:

---

I shoot in RAW, just wondering if there are any programs I'm missing that can gradually change the WB on a few hundred pictures to handle the day to night transition.

---

I haven't really done a timelapse in a while involving that big a change in lighting. I haven't visited it in a while, but a great website with lots of info on timelapse that might have a better answer for you is Timescapes.org.

Yall talking about bokeh?

Very nice.

I like it!

Lovely!

Looks good -- how long of an exposure did you use?

Camera settings on this pic please!