Gear for football photos

[sphinx1000514]

I take photos of my school's football games, however, with my current equipment,

and the horrible lighting at the stadium, i am unable to get any properly

exposed photos. I use a Pentax K10D and a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3

 

For our last football game of the year, my school is going to rent me some

equipment from Pro Photo Supply. I was wondering if anybody has any

recommendations for what equipment would be best for my purposes.

 

Currently, I am planning on renting a Canon 1D Mark III and a 70-200mm 2.8 IS.

But would I be better off with a different lens? perhaps one that is a USM? But

what if that means that I won't get the IS?

 

I am planning on renting Canon gear because of the low noise levels.

 

Here is my list of stuff to choose from:

 

http://prophotosupply.com/p-rental.htm

[leopoldstotch]

The 70-200 is a USM lens, and all but a couple lenses with IS are USM as well. The combo you chose is a very good one, but I hope you have the body for at least a day before the game, as the user interface could take you a bit of time to get used to. A monopod would also be a very good idea.

[phoneguy]

Do you have access to the sideline? (I'm assuming so)

 

I'd rent the 300 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L, and the 85 1.8. Although, you might want a second body

so you don't have to change lenses the entire game.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I can't say whether 70-200 is the right focal length range for your work; I don't shoot football. I can tell you that the lens is excellent; fast as in aperture, fast as in autofocus, and with sharpness that's up to professional standards. If it's a reasonable focal length range, you'll be very well served by this lens.</p>

 

<p>IS is probably not a big deal for your use. IS has two basic modes. Mode 1 attempts to correct <em>all</em> of your motion, which means it's only useful when shooting something that isn't moving. Mode 2 is for panning, either vertically or horizontally but not diagonally; it detects in which plane you're panning and only stabilizes in the other plane. I'm a big fan of IS (and the 70-200/2.8L IS USM is one of the lenses in my collection), but chances are you're not going to be able to make much use of it in this case. Anyway, if you get the IS version, you can always turn IS off when it's not going to be useful, so no worries there.</p>

 

<p>I definitely second the idea of a monopod. Particularly if you end up getting something even bigger like the 300/2.8. But even the 1D and 70-200 will get a bit tiring over the course of a game; this equipment is built very solidly, with a lot of metal in it, and it is <em>not</em> lightweight. The monopod may also help you keep the camera somewhat steadier.</p>

[dave_holland]

The 70-200 is an exceptional lens. The body? Well it's great too, but others would do fine also. I agree with the monopod idea. Remember to use the hood. With that lens it may be a stretch to reach across the width of the field for opposite sideline shots, but longer would be more difficult and would test the limits of your lighting.

 

You'll need time to understand all the controls on the camera body, and if you shoot only one game you will still be on the steep side of the learning curve. Many sports photographers dissociate exposure from autofocus to avoid accidental focusing on the background. On my camera it's CF-4 but you'll have to look it up for your camera. I programmed mine to focus with the right thumb, and I usually shoot with manual exposure to prevent dark or white backgrounds from blowing the exposure. Boost ISO to get shutter speed of at least 1/500 sec, and shoot close to or at wide open. Choose your field position relative to the sun and the background with care. Bring along extra cards as you'll want to shoot tons of images. Remember to vary the context, focal length, shooting position, subjects and background to come up with a nice balance of interesting shots.

 

Dave

[zackojones]

Nolan: Get the 70-200 f/2.8L lens, set the camera to AV mode and use an aperture of 2.8. Watch the shutter speed and keep it as high as possible. Bump the ISO up as needed to account for low light and get lots of memory cards :).

[mark u]

I think you'll probably find the 70-200 is a little short. Review the shots you did take with your K10D, and remember that you are going to need focal lengths that are ~20% longer using a 1D series camera to get the same framing (1.5/"1.3" crop).

 

The 1D MK III can certainly be used at 3200 ISO with excellent image quality, and 6400 ISO produces acceptable, though clearly less good images. You should be able to get some idea of achievable shutter speed by reviewing EXIF data from some of your K10D shots, adjusting for ISO and aperture. I suspect you are going to need f/2.8 and faster lenses even with the enhanced ISO capability of the body to get shutter speeds up high enough.

 

There's a lot of good advice posted already - take heed, and enjoy your shoot.

[zigzag]

"I am planning on renting Canon gear because of the low noise levels.". Certainly the camera stated can be expected to have a better noise performance but as you up the ISO from what you normally use, you will progressively give up the advantage gained. The constant f/2.8 will buy you some of that back so there is little doubt that you have the potential to produce better photos. You want to be keeping your shutter speed above 1/500s so many (on here) discount IS once that is achieved. If you are happy with the focal length combinations given by your current camera then you are going to notice the differences at each end (28-70, 200-300, ignoring crop factors). having said that, the 70-200mm is the lens of choice IQ wise in its range. <br>

 

I shoot sideline, daylight rugby/soccer with a 70-200mm f/4L on my 1.6x crop camera and find that for close action I have to take more than a few steps backwards to get the coverage and in addition I don't have the long range I would want (I am restricted to getting the play to be my side of the field). Ideally I would have two cameras, one with the 70-200 f/2.8 + 1.4x TC and the other with a 24-70mm f/2.8L (dream on) - but then low light is not normally an issue. <br><br>

 

On the subject of 'horrible lighting', there are quite a few tips/articles on here about sports shooting, white balance, use of monopods etc. Take a search and read.<br><br>

 

As stated above, whatever you get, get it as early as possible and spend some quality time with it before you need it, ideally at the venue under the lights so you can see the results on the computer and work out the best strategy.

[uncle_ziba]

It's the first year my son is playing football. I use 40D with 200mm 2.8 lens. I actually gave up on trying to photograph night games (even at ISO 3200 there is not enough shutter speed because of horrible lights). If 1d goes higher than 3200 may be you will be ok. I haven't tried to use flash.

 

I found 200mm is too short if shooting from the end zone, unless your team spends a lot of time closer to it (I hope it does) I think end zone position gives the best view, but I wish I had 300 or 400 2.8 so that I don't have to crop so much (and lose resolution).

 

Based on that I would recommend renting 400 2.8 (+monopod) and 200 2.8 and stay behind the end zone. Switch to 200 mm when team gets closer.

[patrickconnolly]

If you can get the 300 2.8. The Mk III and 300 2.8 are a great combination with exceptional focusing speed. The low noise of the Mk III has to be seen to believe. At 6400 with only minor noise ninja processing the images are quite acceptable given the conditions.

 

Have fun ... but realize that you'll be a bit depressed about having to send back the gear after the game.<div></div>

[William Michael]

>>> I use a Pentax K10D and a Tamron 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 (. . . ) I am planning on renting a Canon 1D Mark III and a 70-200mm 2.8 IS.<<<

 

For field sports, the choice of the lens`s FL is dependent upon the Camera`s viewpoint.

 

If we assume you will have the same camera viewpoint for the next game, and you have previously used the 300mm reach of the Pentax / Tamrom kit, you will need at least a 300mm lens on the EOS1DMkIII. (actually about 350mm lens reach)

 

Also, for field sports a fast lens is needed.

 

And I guess that, the Tamron would be working at F5.6 and smaller most of the time, which seems a bit slow to me, but I do not know the lighting conditions, but you do mention `horrible` so I guess F5.6 is, in fact, too slow

 

So I rule out the EF 100 to 400 zoom, because it will be too slow also.

 

And I tend to rule out the 70 to 200, by itself, because I am reasonably sure it will be too short.

 

The 1DMkIII is a great body, no doubt about that, but do you need it?

 

I suggest, get TWO 20D`s / 30D`s: mount the EF70 to 200F2.8L on one and a 300F4L (or 300F2.8L) on the other.

 

You can still blast at 5fps with that combination, if that is your style.

 

If you are unsure about running two cameras, then still get an APS-C body like a 30D and the 70 to 200 and be prepared to crop in post production.

 

Using a 30D with the 70 to 200 rather than the 1DMkIII, effectively gives you 60mm more FL reach.

 

I am reasonably confident, (regarding the extra reach), a 30D will give better image than if you were to crop the 1DMkIII image, in post production: but I do not wish to start a war of words, over this last comment.

 

WW

[William Michael]

>>> I am reasonably confident, (regarding the extra reach), a 30D will give better image than if you were to crop the 1DMkIII image, in post production: but I do not wish to start a war of words, over this last comment. <<<

 

The above should include the phrase: `at 1600 ISO`

 

Sorry for the omission of that very important working criterion

 

And whilst I am correcting that error of omission . . .

 

If you really need to work at 3200 (or 6400) at F2.8, then the 1DMkIII is most likely necessary, and IMO you need two of them: with the two lenses, or even a 400mm instead of the 300mm.

 

It is a juggle and a guess from this end.

 

The bottom line is, it really depends upon how much light there really is and where you are positioned. This you should determine from your previous.

 

WW

[bmeister]

You need 70-200/f2.8 if you can walk the sidelines. Some high school associations have limits (i.e. you're not allowed between the 25 yd lines) but if you know the coaches and AD of the school or shoot for the local paper, you may be able to encroach those limits occasionally...and I do mean OCCASIONALLY. Otherwise, you will need a 300/f2.8 or 400/f2.8 shooting between the end zone and 25 yd line.

 

The 40D can do sports and is very usable at iso3200. Given its 1.6x crop factor, you could actually do OK with the 70-200/f2.8. I use a 300/f2.8 and 70-200/f2.8 on two separate bodies (both 1DmkII, now 1DmkIII), however, I tried the 70-200/f2.8 on the 40D to "test" the combo at night and it worked out very well. I moved to the 1DmkIII and it rocks for night work. However, if I was in YOUR shoes, I would save the $$$$ on the 1DmkIII and buy the 40D and used 300/f2.8 (non-IS or IS...that's up to you) and used 70-200/f2.8.

 

That's $4400 for a mkIII + $1000 for a 70-200/f2.8 = $5400.

OR

The 40D for $1500 (with the BG-E2) + $2900 for used 300/f2.8 + $1000 for a 70-200/f2.8 = $5400. One body and two awesome lenses. Perfect for ALL high school sports except perhaps gymnastics where you'll want a $4500 200/f1.8 instead.

OR

Get two 1DmkIII bodies, a 300/f2.8 AND a 70-200/f2.8. You have to pay to play.

 

Give or take a few bucks, you will get far more usable images from a single DSLR if you choose a 40D+300/f2.8 than by getting a 1DmkII+70-200/f2.8 for high school football IMHO. Why? You get the 1.6x crop factor so you won't as much detail cropping than if you shot the 1DmkIII+70-200/f2.8 combo and cropped down. I assure you that I crop more often than I don't.

[paul_ingram]

I agree with previous. I had a 20D with the 70-200 2.8, and with the 40D I just bought the images have improved noticeably. I have added a 580EXII flash set on ETTL and -1.5 to -2, and the flash boost is much help. I wouldn't worry about reaching across the field at night for a shot - you need to get a good sampling of the action but you can't be expected to get it all. I have found that with a professional looking photo outfit (and use the hood for extra length) and I have never had a problem with sideline access. I have also created some decent looking passes with our school logo and used a clip-on tag. Looks official. ;-) Of course, my shooting both our school and the other school, then mailing the opponent a CD of pics, has helped with my access as well.

[William Michael]

BW Brock:

 

The OP is having the gear hired for him, the question did not suggest a purchase.

 

I did not consider the 40D.

 

I believed (misguidedly perhaps) that as a relatively new product, few would be available `for hire`: but I guess what is for hire, is different, in different parts of the world.

 

And anyway, my assumption above seems flawed, as the OP suggested hiring the 1DMkIII.

 

The point about high ISO and the 40D is noted.

 

If I am allowed a second go: I reckon one or two 40D`s and the 70 to 200 and a 300 might be an all around answer.

 

WW

[dalayo]

I've shoot soccer games at night, not football, but there are conditions that are the same for both sports. I've used a Canon EOS 30D, (you can rent as a support camera), and these lens: Canon EF 135mm f/2L USM and Canon EF 20-200 mm f/2.8L IS USM. I'm not a pro, but I can guarantee, that you can get good results with this stuff...