# Next purchase?



## LovePhotography (Sep 28, 2014)

So, I've got a 70-200 2.8 II, 6D, and a 2.0 Tele III, and many other lenses, but, currently nothing longer than that. I really want a 200-400 1.4 but am hesitating because of the price. But, I was talking to photo professor at a local big time university, and he said with my 6D, I shouldn't buy the 200-400 unless I also (or first) buy a 1Dx body. I was holding off until the next generation since I like the 6D sensor, although I realize the 1Dx can do other stuff the 6D can't do. Which is more important to own- the 1Dx or the 200-400 1.4? If I get the 200-400 is it that important to get the 1Dx? Thoughts? A 200-400 1.4 with 1Dx total like $17,000! Ouch.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Sep 28, 2014)

Buy Canon 200-400mm presupposes that you will shoot sports like football, or wildlife, and 6D has slow autofocus for these uses. I think 5D Mark iii can do almost everything in the autofocus department, and the price is more friendly. If you shoot with good lighting, even 7D Mark ii can be much better than 6D, when requires fast focus and many photos per second.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 28, 2014)

What kind of photography do you shoot? 

Latest deal on 1dx: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=23020.msg446487;topicseen#new


----------



## Jim Saunders (Sep 28, 2014)

What about a 5D3?

Jim


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> What kind of photography do you shoot?



Most important question.

Next most important question - how is your current gear limiting what you want to shoot? Is there some reason the (very large, very expensive) 200-400 f4 is the required lens for your purposes rather than, say, the (much smaller, much more affordable) 100-400 f4-5.6?


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 28, 2014)

I shoot a little bit of everything from Friday night football to landscape.


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 28, 2014)

And I'm big into resolution. If I'm gonna take the time to shoot the shots, within reasonable expense (not Zeiss Otus, but Sigma Art, or maybe Canon 200-400 1.4 since there seems to be no alternative) I'd like them to be high res. I tried out my 2x tele III on the 70-200 2.8 II the other night at football, but it clearly is not a long term solution (at least not on that lens).
I hesitate to even post this link, because I shot a lot of the pics with the 70-200 with the 2x tele, and I'm not at all happy with the outcome. (
http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-Homecoming-9/

The guy with the 200-400 1.4 is the guy I talked to.


----------



## Dylan777 (Sep 28, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> And I'm big into resolution. If I'm gonna take the time to shoot the shots, within reasonable expense (not Zeiss Otus, but Sigma Art, or maybe Canon 200-400 1.4 since there seems to be no alternative) I'd like them to be high res. I tried out my 2x tele III on the 70-200 2.8 II the other night at football, but it clearly is not a long term solution (at least not on that lens).
> I hesitate to even post this link, because I shot a lot of the pics with the 70-200 with the 2x tele, and I'm not at all happy with the outcome. (
> http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-Homecoming-9/
> 
> The guy with the 200-400 1.4 is the guy I talked to.



If you shoot sports often and budget is on tighter side, I would suggest 5D III + 300mm or 400mm f2.8 IS II.

This combo will give more adv AF system & faster shutter speed for indoor/night time games. I've seen some great sport photos from 6D shooters, just not sure what is their keeper rate is.

1DX is of course the best body in current Canon line up. However, you going to need reach and fast prime(s) to shoot sports.


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 28, 2014)

I am not really considering long white primes. I understand the resolution and the price, but they are too limiting. I'm gonna get a Sigma 50 Art when the figure out the focus issues for resolution, and maybe a 24 T/S II for wider resolution, but with you are too close with a 400mm prime there is not a damn thing you can do about it except walk backwards 50 yards!


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Sep 28, 2014)

Unlike others I am not lusting after the Canon 200-400 - mainly because I would rarely use it at 400mm and mostly use it at 560mm. 
However, having used one, I think it is a great lens if it suits your needs. The first thing that struck me was how fast the AF is. It made my 600 F4 IS seem distinctly pedestrian and was VERY nearly as quick as my 300 F2.8 - maybe as quick! Even on a 6D it is going to AF pretty quick.
I don't own a 6D (yet!) but I am a fan of this camera, nevertheless I can't help feeling that for sports etc a significantly faster camera may be a better first step. I replaced my Canon 1D4 with the 1DX and find it to be a significantly faster responding camera with superior AF. 
I would normally advocat glass before camera bodies but perhaps you should try a 1DX before you decide.


----------



## Steve (Sep 28, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> If you shoot sports often and budget is on tighter side, I would suggest 5D III + 300mm or 400mm f2.8 IS II.



If you absolutely must buy gear, this post makes more sense than the 200-400. I'd emphasize the 300 2.8 with a 1.4TC/2xTC in your pocket for when you want to shoot out to the pitchers mound. It's (relatively) light and maneuverable, ultra sharp and ultra fast. If resolution is what you're after, this seems like the setup.

I honestly didn't see anything in your gallery that says you are being limited by gear. Not trying to sound like a jerk or anything, but local newspaper guys work with a lot less, often Rebels/xxD's and 70-300's, and get good shots. I've seen guys shooting basketball with Oly m43. The answer is almost always more practice, not more gear.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 29, 2014)

I shot this with a 1D Mark IV and a 70-200 f/2.8 IS from the sidelines on manual 1250 f/4 Auto ISO. I'd like a 200-400 too but I have to get the best with the gear I can afford. Can you get closer to what you are shooting? Come out of the stands to the sidelines


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 29, 2014)

BY the Way, my 70-200 focuses much faster with the 1D series 11.1V system than the 5D or 70D 7.2V system. Even my old 1D3 focused faster than the 5D3 I had on CPS loan


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 29, 2014)

Its a good idea to balance quality of camera body with lens. However, the AF speed of the 6D center point is fine. Its weakness comes in the off center focus points and the plastic construction. One series cameras have a higher battery voltage which can drive a focus motor faster, and, of course, construction is supurb.

With your 6D, I'd be tempted to pre-order the $2,000 Sigma Sport 150-600mm lens. Its not really going to be a handheld lens, but neither is the 200-400.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 29, 2014)

Used, good condition 1D Mark IV = $2500
Sell 6D =$1300

Total cost $1200 beats $2000 for a new Sigma 

Total cost of moving to the sidelines to shoot: $0


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2014)

tiger82 said:


> Total cost of moving to the sidelines to shoot: $0



This. Unless its mens collegiate or above, it shouldn't be too difficult to get access. Shots from field/court level are a million times better.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 29, 2014)

High School should be easy and non major college men's sports as well. I'd suggest reading up on sideline rules for both levels.


----------



## LovePhotography (Sep 29, 2014)

Steve said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > Total cost of moving to the sidelines to shoot: $0
> ...



I've already shot from the sidelines, or in front row of bleachers. I just thought I'd try this because you get a better view of the whole field, better orientation of where on the field, not dealing with players on the sidelines as much (or in this case with 6 man football, a couple yards onto the field), dealing with players on the field blocking the view of the ball handler, and dealing with the crown of the field. TV stations can shoot from anywhere, since they basically own the games, and they choose to put their camera just above the last seat on the main floor, where I was for this shoot. But, here is what my sideline, or near sideline shots look like. http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-9192014/i-vLpGDMK
For these I did not use the 2x tele III


----------



## Steve (Sep 29, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> TV stations can shoot from anywhere, since they basically own the games, and they choose to put their camera just above the last seat on the main floor, where I was for this shoot.



TV and stills are entirely different animals. TV needs much wider coverage so the audience can see what's happening and follow the action. Stills need to create a sense of drama and conflict in order to pull out the emotion from the players. You need to be able to see the expressions on their faces. You need to pull the players in close with stills. Shooting from the sidelines/courtside at eye level with the players gives you a sense of intimacy and allows the viewer of the picture to connect emotionally. Shooting from the stands makes it look like a board game and pulls you away from the human drama happening on the field. This is fine for wide shots on TV where you often want to see the bigger picture but you'll notice that TV still uses courtside closeups to pull you in. A really good rule of thumb I've tried to stick to for sports photography is Two Faces, One Ball. Its not 100% required for a good shot but its a good goal to shoot for.

I've not had the opportunity to shoot handegg but I've shot plenty of basketball, hockey and soccer and there isn't a lens that's being manufactured that can make shots from the far end of the field/court look good. A 300 or 400 or 200-400 is great, but you're still going to need to shoot the closer half of the field/court pretty much always. Shooting in closer gets you those facial expressions _and_ it gets you subject isolation - your background will be more out of focus and less distracting. You have to know _why_ you're using that long lens. It doesn't work well as a telescope to shoot the back end of the field.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 30, 2014)

You can't sit in one place and expect to cover all of the angles. You'll have to move closer and change positions relative to the action.


----------



## tiger82 (Sep 30, 2014)

Your images won't improve just because you got a bigger zoom. You'll have the same action just a little tighter.


----------



## tomscott (Sep 30, 2014)

Why not buy a 100-400mm for now and save yourself 15k instead of buying a 1DX and 200-400. See if you use the range.


----------



## tculotta (Sep 30, 2014)

I'll ask a question and please don't be offended if it's something you already considered. Have you done the AFMA on the 6D with the 70-200 and 2x combo? It can make a difference in things being okay versus razor sharp.


----------



## randym77 (Sep 30, 2014)

You might consider the 70-300mm and Kenco extenders as a cheaper alternative to the 200-400mm. 

I like the 1Dx for night sports because it's pretty good in low light. Better than the Mark IV, IMO. You can crank up the ISO. 

Might be worth renting before you decide to buy, if you're not sure.


----------



## iMagic (Sep 30, 2014)

I took a quick look at your sideline shots and, correct me if i am wrong, most if not all the shots are 1/1000 at ISO 8000. Even the shots that have little movement in them. I would think that you can experiment by varying the shutter speed according to the action and thereby lowering your ISO. Even 1/1000 may be a little high in most action shots (I would think 1/500 would be sufficient in a lot of cases). The lower ISO will help in the quality of photos.


----------



## sgs8r (Sep 30, 2014)

The 1DX is (for Canon shooters) the best sports body. All the pros use it. That said, before upgrading your gear, it is probably best to make sure you are getting everything you can out of your current gear. Having looked at your gallery, I would suggest the following (I mean this constructively...I'm not trying to be an asshole):

1. 1/800 is slow for fast moving sports. I would try to get it up to 1/1600 or higher.

2. Do some/more post-processing. Get a color-checker passport and use it to reduce the hideous color cast of the stadium lights. Lift the shadows in LR. Increase the overall exposure where needed. Lightly dodge in on the faces with LRs adjustment brush, etc. But recognize that night game images (under high school lights) will generally suck compared to what you can get in early/late day light or overcast daytime. And will take more postprocessing. Not always, but usually.

3. With the 70-200, you can only cover half the field. Don't bother shooting the other end. This assumes that you are down on the field. From the stands you are even more limited. Resist the urge to shoot stuff too far away (unless you need to document for posterity or legal proceedings!). You'll just end up with crappy images.

4. Shooting from the stands is mostly only good for wide shots. There's a reason that all the pros are down on the field, kneeling or sitting. Shooting from below makes athletes look more imposing. And you want to be close, close, close. Ideally, you want to see the intensity in their eyes. Pick a spot where you can get backgrounds that work. If you must be in the stands, try to find larger compositions that work. Line yourself up with the neutral zone and shoot down the line of scrimmage right before or after the snap. 

5. Don't be a no-crop purist. Crop tightly into the key elements and cut out the extraneous junk. If what's left is poor quality or doesn't work, cut it. With sports it is often hard to compose in real time, so finish composing on your computer if necessary. Work for clean compositions. Clean backgrounds. No foreground clutter. Crop or compose out distracting & irrelevant junk (bright lights, signage, trash cans, water jugs, random people, etc., unless they are purposeful parts of the composition). Most cameras have plenty of pixels, particularly if the image is sharp and will be viewed on 2MP displays. 


6. If you haven't already, put focus on the back button so you have more control. Not sure about the 6D AF, but you should probably be in servo. The low frame rate will limit your ability to capture the "decisive moment," (without good experience/talent/anticipation) but get what you can.

7. If you are uploading a gallery you want people to look at, don't have multiple similar shots. Choose the best and cut the rest.

8. Unless there is a compelling visual composition, don't shoot people's backs, players running/walking away from you, etc. Resist the urge to shoot because something exciting is happening even though you can't really see it. Or reflexively punching the shutter button because something amazing just happened (and you missed it). You want to see faces, eyes (if possible), the ball. Players in a highly athletic/dynamic position that reflects the intensity of the action. And as Bruce Lee says in _Enter the Dragon_: "We need emotional content!"


----------



## mrzero (Sep 30, 2014)

LovePhotography said:


> TV stations can shoot from anywhere, since they basically own the games, and they choose to put their camera just above the last seat on the main floor, where I was for this shoot. But, here is what my sideline, or near sideline shots look like. http://optimagroup.smugmug.com/Vanguard-Football-9192014/i-vLpGDMK
> For these I did not use the 2x tele III



The only TV cameras up that high are used as part of a multi-camera setup that includes numerous cameras on the field level as well. The still photographers and other video stringers are all on the field level, too. TV and newspaper photogs shooting high school and college football games all universally shoot from the sideline, I know because I did it for years. 

First thing, get on the ground. Even the first row of the stands is too high. Second, get as close to the sideline as you can. You need to eliminate all the sidelined players, coaches, cheerleaders, etc. from your action shots. Trust Robert Capa's advice, "If your photographs aren't good enough, you're not close enough." Third, you need to be in front of the line of scrimmage, so that the play is coming AT you. All of your sideline action shots, you are behind the line of scrimmage, meaning that all we can see is backs. And move ahead when the line of scrimmage moves.

Everything that everybody else has posted in this thread is correct, constructive criticism. Try these tips and you'll save yourself a lot of money!


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Oct 1, 2014)

Get the Tamron 100-600 for a thousand bucks. Don't worry about a new body unless you've got cash to burn,
and go have fun.


----------



## gsealy (Oct 1, 2014)

iMagic said:


> I took a quick look at your sideline shots and, correct me if i am wrong, most if not all the shots are 1/1000 at ISO 8000. Even the shots that have little movement in them. I would think that you can experiment by varying the shutter speed according to the action and thereby lowering your ISO. Even 1/1000 may be a little high in most action shots (I would think 1/500 would be sufficient in a lot of cases). The lower ISO will help in the quality of photos.



Yep, go out and shoot shutter priority and do some tests. For people sports usually 1/500 will stop the action. If you were shooting a baseball game, then you could probably go to 1 sec.


----------

