Had to go Canon for 500 or 600mm

[genec]

Not true. Autofocus is fine with 1.4 so long as there is lots of light but 2.0 and it is manual focus all the way.

[brettjohnson]

In agree with Shun my first relationship didn't work out so I had to switch to a model that suited my requirements better, been very happy with the decision going on 15 yrs now. I suspect that cameras are the same.

[ramon_v__california_]

that's cute, brett. my first was 17 yrs.

[richard_lewis3]

Jonathan

 

As a sports photographer, particularly track, I have a sense of what you are trying to accomplish. From your description of the event and the distance you will be shooting, you have a most difficult task ahead.

 

If my calculations are correct, with a 600mm lens and a 1.5 crop factor (I used Nikons for ease of calculation, with the following results rounded) it generates an Angular FOV of 2o 40', which results in a linear FOV of 147' at 1000 yards or about 15 feet at 100 yards. This results in a view area of about 170 square feet. With your subject, assuming 6' tall and 2 to 3 feet wide, a generous dimension, totaling no more than 17 square feet, he will only take up about 10 percent of your image. You'll have to be cropping the image substantially if you want it to fill the frame.

 

To accomplish this you'll want the highest possible pixel count possible or an additional in camera crop factor, such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on High Speed Crop mode, you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5 square feet. Now the subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable prospect.

 

The other option is to use a 1.4x teleconverter, which will yield essentially the same calculations with a 1.5 crop factor chip compared to the 2.0x Nikon HSC of the D2X. The advantages of the D2X are several: Higher shutter speed, better native lens aperture, optimized in-camera cropping for "what you see is what you get". Downside is cost, but you would be able to maintain your current lens arsenal for use on this body. Of course, VR isn't available on the Nikon lenses you're considering, which is of course your primary concern.

 

However, my sense is that one possible reason very few Nikon long telephotos are available is because there is a lens transition in the works for this fall. Maybe wishful thinking, but if you could wait until then, you might find a most beneficial solution. On the other hand, even if announced, it's questionable how soon they would actually be available. Lots of questions with Nikon, and more clear-cut answers with Canon at this time.

 

In any event, make sure you purchase the best body, as well as lens, for your purpose, since it's so important to you. Obviously the higher the crop factor, pixel count and shutter speed the better, with the D2X from Nikon the best option, and the 1D MarkIIn from Canon second. Good Luck!

[John Crowe]

I came up with an 1193mm lens using the local calculator. That's 35mm equivalent which means a 500 to 600mm lens on the 30D with a 1.4x. Guess you're right. I think the 1DIIn would fall a little short with only a 1.3x factor.

 

 

I am totally ignorant when it comes to cricket, but are you sure he is that far away? Which leads me to another question: Do you need autofocus to capture this guy? He isn't running very far, with respect to you, right? A Nikon 600/4 AIS comes in at such a low price it's disposable! I know, no IS.

[wen_lin]

Nikon has a 200-400 AFS with VR that canon doesn't. Now thats an awesome glass. might not be long enough, but it has some flexibility. But then again there is the 1200mm Canon......it's about the weight of a 85mm recoiless rifle...happy shooting.

 

Wen

www.photonaturally.com.au

[richard_lewis3]

Jonathan

 

Regarding the overall consideration of switching from Nikon to Canon, the above reference to the Nikkor 200-400 VR brings up an important issue. Even though I use this lens and love it, I didn't mention it because it isn't long enough for your cricket shots as you describe.

 

However, it is such a potent tool for both sports and wildlife use that many Canon pros are accommodating their equipment setups to use it. I recently talked to a manager of a large reputable retail and wholesale Nikon and Canon distributor, and although he is primarily a Canon user personally, he's obtaining the 200-400 VR with a Nikon body to use for an important wildlife shoot he has coming up. He also indicates that some Canon shooters are actually switching to Nikon for this lens. It's important to consider all your needs, both current and future, in determining a switch such as this.

 

Also, before you do decide to make any switch, I strongly recommend you consider renting the equipment from both Nikon and Canon to determine your satisfaction with it. Too expensive to not do this! And maybe you simply rent the equipment for the Barbados cricket match as well? Good Luck!

[mark_chappell]

<I>, such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on High Speed Crop mode,

you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5 square feet. Now the

subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable prospect.</i><P>

 

With a given lens, subject, and subject distance, switching to High Speed Crop in a D2X

has zero effect on the number of pixels in the image of the subject. All it does is record

only the central 50% of the pixels on the sensor instead of all of them -- the same effect

as shooting in normal mode and then cropping in Photoshop. Crop mode does let you

shoot at much higher frame rates, which can be advantageous.<P>

 

<I>I came up with an 1193mm lens using the local calculator. That's 35mm equivalent

which means a 500 to 600mm lens on the 30D with a 1.4x. Guess you're right. I think the

1DIIn would fall a little short with only a 1.3x factor.</I><P>

 

You could do it with a 1DII, 500mm lens, and 2X converter, which has the FOV of a full-

frame FL of 1300 mm. A bit less sharp than with a 1.4X (but still VERY sharp), one stop

slower (but you should have plenty of light during the day), and more limited AF (central

point only).<P>

 

If you are interested in sports, maybe the 200-400 VR would be more generally useful

than a long focal-length prime. For birds and most wildlife you generally need all the

focal length you can get, but for most sports I'd think a zoom would be very handy.

[farmer on the hill]

The internet was down yesterday, hence my late return. It is a hard decision for sure weather to stay with Nikon or go Canon for long telephoto, the Nikon lenses can't be found except for one 500 that B&H are selling for top dollar (US not Imported)I like the D200 camera, for the price you get a lot of bang and I don't see a Canon equivalent for that price. Still going to Canon for their lens and buying a camera to go with it is a strong point, the only thing is I should get two camera bodies for reliability purposes. Nikon is more expensive throughout the line. I see they now have special converters to work with the Silent Wave units at a big price. If you add it all up, you can almost throw in a Canon body and spend just about the same and still have Image Stabilization which I see as a small bonus. I keep second guessing myself; I think it will end up with me going into B&H, holding the gear in hand and making a decision there and then.

 

A good suggestion was to rent and then decide, unfortunately that facility does not exist in this neck of the woods.

[farmer on the hill]

I did a quick test with the old Tamron 200-400 set at 400. I stood next to a lamp pole and marked my height (6'3") Took a shot of the lamp pole 90 yards away. The 400mm does not come close to what I need; even the 500 with a 1.4 converter will need a good bit of cropping. Anyone with a good used 600 f4 AF that wants to sell?

[farmer on the hill]

I am still looking at the Sigma 800 5.6. Good price and am told it's a good sharp lens. Still would prefer a Nikon or Canon 600 f4 with a 1.4 converter.

[mark_chappell]

<I>I am still looking at the Sigma 800 5.6. Good price and am told it's a good sharp lens.

</i><P>

 

As we discussed in another thread, I had the Sigma 800/5.6 for a while. It was quite

sharp, but I found it extremely difficult to achieve that sharpness due to camera shake

issues. For that reason -- and because it's physically considerably longer than a C or N

500 or 600 and hence much harder to bring on a plane as carry-on -- I can't give it a high

recommendation. The Canon 500 IS is substantially sharper and the IS makes it FAR easier

to get consistently sharp images. Also, if you put a 1.4X on the Sigma 800, you get a

1120 mm f8, which will AF on high-end Canon bodies and might AF on high-end Nikon

bodies (it didn't on my F100). A 2X on a 600/4 gives a 1200 mm f8, with the same AF

capacities in a smaller package.

[farmer on the hill]

Mark,

 

I need to get fairly close in at about 90 yards, this needs a long lens, Thanks for the advice on the Canon 500 being sharper than the Sigma 800. I think the 500mm is going to be to short for the job, with a 2X converter it will work but will it AF? I know it will with the 1.4X but I haven't seen any info on high end Nikon bodies working with a 2X and a f4 lens, One more point for Canon. I can look at the specs on Canon bodies, but can you let me have your opinion on the various Canon models 8 megapixel and up with DX format?

[mark_chappell]

<I>with a 2X converter it will work but will it AF?</i><P>

 

Yes, if you have a 1-series camera (1DIIN or 1DsII). Only the central AF spot works and it

doesn't focus as fast as with faster lens+converter combinations. But it does work

reliably. You'll have to ask Nikon experts about AF with an f8 combination.<P>

 

<I>can you let me have your opinion on the various Canon models 8 megapixel and up

with DX format?</i><P>

 

Canon does not use the DX format. The low-end models use APS-C, which is a teeny bit

smaller than DX (1.6X instead of 1.5X). None of these will AF at f8 (unless you play tricks

by taping some of the electrical contacts). The 5D is full-frame with 12+ megapixels and

is reputed to be excellent, but it also won't AF at f8, and it is fairly slow (3 frames/sec).

The 1-series DSLRs are fast, rugged, weathersealed (whatever that means), AF handily at

f8, and cost a bundle. The 1DIIN has 8.2 megapixels and a 1.3X sensor and shoots at 8

frames/sec (I use the similar 1DII and am very impressed with it). The 1DsII is full-frame

with twice the megapixels and half the frame rate and twice the cost of the 1DIIN -- not

really a 'sports' camera.<P>

 

For your purposes I'd recommend the 1DIIN if you go with Canon.

[farmer on the hill]

Hmm!?

[dale_keith]

Jonathan,

 

Are you going to be using your 500 or 600mm on a tripod? (Wimberley and a Gitzo1325?)

If so, either system will work. IS or VR are great if you are hand-holding. On a GOOD

tripod set up you really don't need the IS or VR to get GREAT shots. I have a 200-400

Nikon and use it on and off the tripod. When off the tripod, I use the VR featurs. I also

picker up a Nikon 500mm AFS I and use it on the tripod and have taken some great flight

shoots. I have found I use the 200-400 with a 1.4 extender very often. For me the 600 is

too much to carry. I wish Nikon would come out with a 400-600mm F4.0 VR. I would buy

one in a heartbeat. If you use Nikon gear, they have lenses to do the job. Yes, I have seen

Canon users go for the D200 and the 200-400mm VR Nikon lens. If you get the chance,

take a look at the 200-400VR. My best to you and please let us know of your decision as

both Canon and Nikon systems are great.

[mark_chappell]

<I>On a GOOD tripod set up you really don't need the IS or VR to get GREAT shots.</i><P>

 

Of course you don't need IS or VR on a tripod. But it does help, especially at low shutter

speeds.

[farmer on the hill]

Dale,

 

Thanks for your comments. Like I said, I will have to have this gear in hand and I think only then will I have a better idea of where to go.

[richard_lewis3]

>>Mark Chappell , may 28, 2006; 07:02 p.m.

>, such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on High Speed Crop mode, you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5 square feet. Now the subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable prospect.<

 

With a given lens, subject, and subject distance, switching to High Speed Crop in a D2X has zero effect on the number of pixels in the image of the subject. All it does is record only the central 50% of the pixels on the sensor instead of all of them -- the same effect as shooting in normal mode and then cropping in Photoshop. Crop mode does let you shoot at much higher frame rates, which can be advantageous.<<

 

Mark

When you responded to this quote, you left out the critical prior part of the sentence. The entire quote reads:

 

>>To accomplish this you'll want the highest possible pixel count possible "or an additional in camera crop factor", such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on High Speed Crop mode, you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5 square feet. Now the subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable prospect. <<

 

Notice the critical words "or an additional in camera crop factor". I realize the in-camera crop reduces the pixel count. The issue I was raising for Jonathan regarding the FOV and resulting subject to image size was this: He either must crop the image afterward in software, or find a way to crop it in camera. If done with post processing, he'll need a higher pixel count to achieve any professional results. If done in camera, as with the D2X, since he can use the lens at it's native "prime" focal length without any TC degradation, he can achieve excellent results even with a lower pixel count. My primary concern for Jonathan is the size of the subject within his image in the end result, and the quality of subject and overall image. It's going to be a tough nut to crack any way he approaches it. And using a 2x TC rather than a 1.4x TC is going to further degrade the image on any long lens, let along provide for questionable AF with what I would consider a fast moving subject. Any shot that will be memorable will not find the batsman stationary or even moving slowly. Unless you want blurring in the subject for effect, which can work well depending on the circumstances but better done purposely with shutter speed as opposed to lack of overall focus, he'll need good AF.

 

Mark, I agree with you on the 800mm, not a good choice. And Jonathan, from my perspective, the minimum focal length you'll need is a 600mm. You could shoot this with either a Canon 30D and a 1.4x TC, or prime with a Nikon D2X in HSC mode for approximately the same pixel count. The 30D would provide a slightly better FOV due to it's 1.6 crop factor vs Nikon's 1.5, and would have 8mm pixels vs about 7mm for the D2X in HSC mode, which is negligible. Or you could opt for the Nikon D200 and 1.4x TC for a higher pixel count and image quality. any of these three would provide approximately a 25% subject to image ratio as my prior post states. Another approach would be to use the Canon 1Ds MarkII and 1.4x TC or the Nikon D2X and 1.4x TC in standard mode. Tests by Bjorn Rorslett indicate relative equal performance between these two cameras, particularly if you're cropping the image.

 

Sounds like you may be better off financially going the Canon route. That way you can go with the cheaper 30D with 8.2mm pixels (mm = 1000x1000 or million in math speak, not camera speak for millimeters!) at a tighter crop factor of 1.6 vs the 1D Mark IIn with the same pixel count on a bigger sensor with a 1.3 crop factor. Then you can use the Canon 600mm lens with IS, add the 1.4x TC and you have the 25% subject to image ratio. May require additional cropping, but you should be good with this setup. If you want to stay with Nikon, the same setup with a D200, or the D2X in HSC mode and 600 prime provides better image quality for cropping, but without image stabilization on the lens, at least not now. Frankly, with all the sports shooting I've done, unless there's a low light situation, shutter speed beats VR every time. Good luck!

 

PS: Although you seem anxious to make a decision, with a year until the event, I wouldn't be in a hurry to make the purchase, not only because of the continuing trend for falling prices with anything digital, but also because of the accelerating trend in innovation!

 

 

 

[farmer on the hill]

Richard,

 

Thanks for your in depth advice. I appreciate the time all of you have given me on this topic and will keep you guys informed on my decision.

[mark_chappell]

<I>>>To accomplish this you'll want the highest possible pixel count possible "or an

additional in camera crop factor", such as the Nikon D2X would provide. With this body on

High Speed Crop mode, you'd be able to achieve a linear FOV of about 10 1/2 feet or 78.5

square feet. Now the subject takes up almost 25% or your image, a much more workable

prospect. << </i><P>

 

I think we're miscommunicating. The HSC mode with the D2X does not change pixel

density relative to standard mode. Pixel pitch is 7 micrometers in both conditions. With

the same lens and distance, the image of the subject will cover exactly as many pixels in

HSC mode as in standard mode and will be no different than what you'd get from cropping

down from a standard mode D2X image. The only advantage of HSC is frame rate.<P>

 

I hesitate to recommend the 30D for fast-moving sports because of its more limited frame

rate compared to the 1DIIN (also, its shutter lag is longer than that of the 1DIIN). Overall I

think Jonathan would be better off with a 1DIIN and a 2X converter than with a 30D and a

1.4X converter. Image quality will likely not differ much under the two scenarios, and the

1DII offers higher frame rates, greater ruggedness, and a better viewfinder. I have used

both cameras and both converters rather extensively with a 500 IS lens, so this isn't just

guesswork on my part. There will be a slight tradeoff between frame rate and AF

performance (AF on a 30D at f5.6 is probably better than with a 1DIIN at f8). But if he's

shooting at something 90 yards/meters away, there isn't a tremendous AF challenge,

especially if the target isn't running directly towards or away from the camera.<P>

 

Not sure if it's been mentioned in this thread, but on a warm day, images of someone shot

from 90+ meters away may be degraded by convection cells ('heat waves') to such an

extent that optical differences among lenses will be immaterial to the final result.<P>

 

I certainly agree with Richard that if you've got a year before this event, you have plenty of

time to explore your options. If at all possible, rent and play with the various cameras and

lenses. Who knows? In a year's time Nikon could surprise us and (finally) bring out VR

500's and 600's. Better late than never.

[richard_lewis3]

Mark

 

We sure are going back and forth on the D2X aren't we! LOL I understand perfectly how it works, and that the pixel density of the chip isn't changed. That's why I mentioned the option of full frame with 1.4 TC and then additional cropping. However, the in camera HSC does more than just provide higher frame rate. First it allows you to frame the action more precisely for, as I mentioned earlier, "what you see is what you get". And the in camera electronics optimize the actual HSC pixels used, even though there are fewer, so there actually is some pre processing benefit. Once you have used it for sports shooting, the positive benefits become evident.

 

While we're saying much the same thing regarding HSC, I do disagree with your evaluation of the image quality of teleconverters in general, and specifically the 2.0 TC. While I can only speak to Nikon's versions, in all my personal experience with a broad variety of Nikon AFS lenses, both prime and zoom, there is a noticable degradation in quality between the 1.4 TC and the 2.0 TC, not just on the long lenses, but on anything in the AFS pro line. Now there are specific exceptions regarding older lenses and TC compatability, for example the Nikkor 400 3.5 and the TC300, as mentioned in Bjorn Rorslett's teleconverter review here:

 

http://www.naturfotograf.com/index2_PC.html

 

But none of the new designs seem to have this "perfect mating" of lens and TC. While Bjorn mentions "excellent" results with the TC14E and TC20E, he notes the latter is less effective, with the primary caveat being stated in the text above where he admonishes the use of any teleconverters unless absolutely necessary. (Not withstanding your personal experience, everything I've heard from pros using Canon lenses mirrors Bjorn's views on Nikon TCs.) I believe for Jonathan's purposes, though, it will be difficult to achieve a quality cropped image without a TC of a minimum of 1.4X, or possibly 1.7X TC, or using the prime 600 lens, with the high pixel count 1Ds MarkII or the D2X with in camera crop.

 

Jonathan, hopefully Mark and I haven't confused the issue with our back and forth, and that you can make the selection process fun with out too much stress. I wish you well in all this!

[dale_keith]

Jonathan,

The solution is simply: send me a dollar, I'll buy you a Florida or New Hampshire Lottery

ticket and Poof! You're in the money with no worries and knee deep in cameras.

[mark_chappell]

Richard: I don't disagree that if you compare the results you'd get from a 2X to what you'd

get from a 1.4X, image quality averaged across the frame will be lower with the latter. No

question about that: if I can achieve the same composition by 'zooming with my feet' with

either combination I'll always use the 1.4X. But at least with the Canon 1.4X, 2X, and 500

mm lens, if I can't change the distance to the subject, results are generally better if I use a

2X instead of using a 1.4X and then cropping/enlarging. That's true if the camera in use

is a 1DII, which will AF with either converter. It's more 'iffy' with a 30D, where the f8

combination has to be manually focused (my eyes are less and less up to that challenge as

time passes).

 

In terms of a 30D+1.4X vs. a 1DII +2x, I think results will generally be better with the

latter -- they are for me -- but the difference won't be much and in many shooting

situations it will likely be obscured by other factors (such as convection cells over 90

meters of warm ground). You gain a higher pixel density with the 30D combo, but you

have a narrower FOV with the 1DII combo (and twice the frame rate).

[mark_chappell]

<I>... and twice the frame rate</i><P>

 

Well, almost twice the frame rate: 8 vs 5 frames/sec.