neil_everitt

<p>Hi Jean. I would add that sports photography is very demanding of equipment and sports in low light, which would apply with indoor ice hockey, is the most demanding of all. There is no substitute for good glass and that costs. That's not to say you can't get great sports pics with cheaper equipment but you will have to work within its limitations and the failure rate will be higher.<br>

I don't know much about Nikon I am afraid, except that alongside Canon they are probably the best. A quick google tells me that the D200 is not one of the latest models, in fact it was introduced six years ago – a long time in the development of digital cameras which have come on leaps and bounds in more recent years in terms of noise suppression (looks like the grain that you refer to from the days of film).<br>

I would have thought that the noise in that photo is probably about right for that camera and ISO speed. As you probably know, the noise will increase the higher the ISO speed.<br>

No, the main problem with the photo you posted, I would say, is that it exhibits signs of subject movement caused by a too slow shutter speed. As others have written, there is technically no way around that as you are constrained by your relatively slow lenses. <br>

So, instead of shooting the peak action, look for the moments when a player pauses, turns or hesitates, etc. You may still produce a high percentage of duff images (don't we all!!) but don't worry your pictures will improve with experience and it will also teach you an invaluable lesson in how to read the game.<br>

Enjoy, and don't be disheartened.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>While some may regard having the latest and greatest version of everything as essential for professional work, others realize that once you have good gear, it stays good gear. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>That may be true with, to a large degree, with lenses but not so with digital camera bodies. The 1DMkl was a good camera; in my opinion, the first true digital alternative to film cameras for sports/press work. However, the Mkll provided a significant improvement and, despite some people's experiences to the contrary, the Mklll a further leap forward. The Mkl was a good camera but, from the point of view of taking the best quality pictures, it cannot stand comparison to a Mklll. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>If it's Canon PROFESSIONAL Services, why not a "professional" requirement. They don't call it "Canon Approved-Set-of-Equipment Services". In fact no proof at all of professional status is now required (it used to be). If you say that you are a professional, they simply believe you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This assumes that you accept the definition of professional as being someone who earns all or a majority of their income from photography. See my response above. There are "cowboys" and incompetents in every profession. They still manage to find some mug to give them work. When busy, I have in the past subbed work to others or suggested where customers might find someone to work for them. On many occasions I have been embarrassed at the quality of photos and level of service that has subsequently been provided. Yet these, by definition, are professional? <br>

</p>

<p>I couldn't agree more with Michael Liczbanski.<br>

My old F1s I used to be able to keep for 10-15 years or more and EOS film gear for 10 or so. In the, what, 6 or 7 years since the introduction of the 1D, I have had a succession of Mkls, Mklls and Mkllls just to keep up with the vast improvements in quality that each successive model has brought. And I feel I owe that to the clients I work for. <br>

And don't tell me photographers can't afford it. I didn't drop my charges when I went digital because although I saved the expenditure of film, chemicals, processing, etc, this money was instead re-allocated to keeping up with the new technology, i.e. investing in equipment.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The problem here is that a percentage of working professional photographers who actually WANT to join CPS can't do so because they don't own enough of the "right" equipment to qualify. And even if they do, unless they keep upgrading it, it's likely that their qualifying items will eventually be dropped from the "approved" list when new models are introduced. That's the issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But, Bob, why do they want to join? Is it more an ego thing that suddenly they are not perceived as "professional" photographers by Canon, because no one has yet answered my question as regard to tangible benefits, certainly here in the UK. <br>

I would like to believe that CPS in the UK could offer me a much better service at a cheaper price than I could get from an independent repairer but, so far, no-one has yet been able to come up with any evidence to show that that is the case.<br>

If so, I suggest that people move on. Who cares if Canon no longer classify you as professional? After all, "cowboy" builders would be classified in their particular trade as a "professional" – they earn their living from the building trade but how many of them get repeat jobs or jobs by recommendation?<br>

I would maintain that professionalism cannot be measured by how much of your living is earned from photography, just as it can't be in any other trade. There are some dreadful exponents of the art of photography out there who still manage to find someone stupid enough or gullible enough to employ them. No, professionalism is a state of mind, craft and attitude, providing great results for clients on time, again and again, irrespective of whether you earn 100% of your income from photography or 1%.</p>

<p>Bob, <br>

It would appear that the level of CPS service offered varies wildly around the world. The platinum and gold service to which you refer in the US does not appear to be available in the UK - and it is the first time I have ever heard of it. <br>

On three occasions that I have approached Canon for repairs under CPS in the UK, I was never quoted any repair turn around shorter than two weeks – not the within six days they quote on the US CPS. Maybe I was unlucky but I don't consider two weeks to be much of a professional advantage. <br>

The last time I needed a repair – a broken shutter on a 1DMkll last summer – I didn't even bother to contact CPS. I had it fixed within five days by an independent repairer. The cost was around £300 if I remember correctly. Perhaps someone on here who has had a similar repair carried out by CPS in the UK could tell me how much their "discounted" repair was and how long it took, just for comparison.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Michael Liczbanski wrote:<br>

Expedited/discounted repairs and loaners are the only tangible benefits of CPS and CPS is not a "professional association" of any kind so, unless you are after chachkas or a monopod cover or a free coup of coffee or sensor cleaning at supported events (but you must be credentialed and have access to non-public areas, that's where the CPN/CPS trailer/tent is usually located...) membership only makes sense if you can get speedy turnaround on repairs of the eqipment that Canon fully supports.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree entirely.<br>

My experience of CPS in the UK is that it is not worth a light. Canon's can claim "expedited" repairs for its "professional" CPS members only if the "general public" have to wait far longer. As a CPS member, I was quoted two weeks for a repair – how long would I have had to have waited otherwise, 4 weeks? A commercial independent repairer did the same repair in five days.<br>

<br /><br>

<br /></p>

<p>Maybe someone can explain to me what precisely the benefits are? I'm a member but on three occasions of trying to make use of the benefits of a professional service for repairs, the service offered has been, in my opinion anything but "professional". <br>

The last time, repairs to a 70-200 (dropped, my fault), which was desperately needed for a job seven days later would, I was told, take two weeks to repair – and no replacement was available or offered. I took it straight round to Fixation who repaired it in five days.<br>

I'm a professional, I don't care what it costs, I want it fixed. Discounted repairs are no good to me when there is work to be done.<br>

I don't even bother to register my kit with them anymore.<br>

Hopeless. </p>

Hi Scott,

I'm mainly using 1DMkll and lll, and I would assume that, as you say, speeds are relative to bodies used. In other words, if the

body's AF focusing ability improves so does that of the lens used on it, but a 'slower focusing' lens is still never going to

match a 'faster focusing' lens on the same body.

As all figures would be relative, I can see nothing to stop Canon (or any other manufacturer) using a standard set of

conditions to test lens focusing speeds. And they wouldn't have to do it on all bodies. For instance, if Canon were to

create a standard set of conditions and test lenses on any camera, a 5D, say, they might come up with a set of figures

in milliseconds. The actual figures wouldn't be important but you would be able to see which lenses were faster than

others and, presumably, these differences would be duplicated (to a greater or lesser extent) across the entire range of

Canon bodies, whether you were using a 20D or a Mklll.

Focusing speeds on lenses have improved over the years, and we're only talking differences of milliseconds, but those

differences can be make or break in sport.

Scott: My 70-200 is the Mkl, non IS, which may be slower than your Mkll IS.

Strangely, shutter lags on camera bodies are quoted but lens focusing speeds never are. Why?

Is there anywhere a comparison of the auto focusing speeds of the various Canon L lenses? Some are quite obviously faster than others.

I currently benchmark everything against the 300 2.8L, which I think is fabulously fast to focus, but I also require something shorter. I

use a 70-200 2.8L, the Mkl version, but its focusing speed and accuracy invariably leaves me disappointed. Is the Mkll IS version faster or

would I be better going for a prime 200mm 2.8L?

Tanya, your choice should really depend on what you want the camera for, the subjects you shoot, etc. As a working

photographer I will only ever purchase top-of-the-range equipment. I owe it to myself, my professionalism and, more

especially, the client. The 1-series Canons with their build quality, durability and features give you that edge and I have

bought similarly way back to the mid-80s when I got my first F-1n.

But it really is a case of diminishing returns. The 1-series are the best you can buy, but like top-of-the-range hi-fi, you

may consider the difference in quality not being value for money compared to the difference in price.

Unless you are a professional I would suggest waiting for the 5D - but give it six months for them to iron out any bugs!

"I do envy the Auto ISO"

Hi David, yes, although it is not something I particularly desire, I can't think why no-one has ever introduced it before. It

can't be rocket science. I would suspect that Canon will follow suit with this feature.

Brent: Hopefully this will help Gary because the D3, of course falls way short of his desired 21MP.

Although, it might not be of great benefit to me, I can see how an auto variable ISO setting would be of great use to

those doing theatre work, concerts, etc. In fairness to your friend's photos as well, his pictures have obviously been

cropped and/or resampled down from what must be something like a 35MB file produced by the D3.

I think Nikon have been too far behind for too long, so fair play to them if the D3 now ticks all the boxes for Nikon users.

However, I think that the 1DMklll has been tainted by initial problems that many seem to have had with the camera.

Nikon giving Canon a good kicking, of course, will ensure that they don't rest on their laurels.

Having now had a Mklll for about six months I am constantly stunned by the speed and accuracy of focusing and the

quality of the results - even at 1600 and 3200. I still have a Mkll (and a Mkl) but the Mkll knocks spots off it - particularly

at high ISOs.

Like everyone else, I'm looking forward to the MklV (and V) but don't dismiss the Mklll.

Yes, Brent, the photos are very nice but many are taken at much slower ISO speeds than the 1600 and 3200 you mention.

Those that are taken at higher ISO speeds are no more impressive than I am getting with a 1DMklll. As an example,

TRP4032 is shot at 3200, at 125th stopped down to f4. Don't get me wrong, it's good, but no better than I would expect at

that ISO.

I should qualify my answer. If I was shooting a sport which required me to shoot from a standing position (although, off

hand, I can't think of any) then I would use a pod with a 300 2.8 (but certainly not with a 70-200) as it would get tiring very

quickly. Shooting football (soccer) from a seated position, as you do, the left hand supporting the lens, your left elbow

naturally rests on your left thigh. This provides far better support than a monopod, allows greater manoeuvrability and, with

practice and anticipation, it is just as quick to jump between horizontal and vertical formats.

If using two bodies with the 300 and a short for goalmouth action, then I would mount the 300 on a pod, mainly because

you can then quickly drop the 300 against your shoulder when switching to the camera with the shorter lens.

As Wilson says, any lens that might benefit from using a monopod is designed and supplied with a collar. I would go as far

as to say that in my opinion only a 400 2.8 and above really requires the use of a monopod. Unless you are trying to

create certain special effects, you will be using a shuttter speed fast enough to stop action, which by definition will be fast

enough to stop any camera shake from hand holding.

I am beginning to suspect that RG has got himself down a blind alley with this one. I put off buying a Mklll until about six

months ago because of the adverse criticism of this camera. Since buying one I can tell you unequivocally that the hit rate

of my Mklll in predictive AF beats my former Mkll hands down.

So would I be put off by RG's comments on the 40D? No!

I have owned (and still own) and used a Mkl, Mkll and Mklll in a sporting career spanning more than 30 years. I am not in a

position to doubt Rob Galbraith's findings with the bodies he has used but, in my experience, the Mklll is by far the best of

the three. I still use the Mkll as back-up from time to time but the focussing accuracy is far better on the Mklll - in my

opinion.

It's worth noting that others have tested and compared the Mkll and Mklll and come to a completely opposite conclusion to

Mr Galbraith.

Presuming that it is not the CF card (have you tried another card?) then it is a camera repair issue - and your repairers

should be able to identify the problem.

DPI: Causes a lot of confusion but is really quite simple - but a bit involved to

explain. To cut a long story short, you should have nor problem supplying 72dpi files

to photo processors, the machine just shrinks the photo to fit. I have supplied files

at 72dpi to Photobox with no problem.

However, if you are merely dragging the jpeg files off your camera onto your

computer, you can then very simply change them in Photoshop to 300dpi. Go to

image>image size, uncheck "resample" image, and change resolution from 72 to

300. You'll notice that the image dimensions have change but the file size will be the

same.

You can even set it up as an action.

Hi Tom. If your photos are blurred we would need further details on how you were shooting,

exposure, focus points, etc.

Evening suggests you were shooting under lights which, depending on how bright they were,

might suggest camera shake or subject movement for the blurriness.

Please supply as much detail as you can.

Jim, forget all the filter concerns. Buy the lens, you won't regret it but be prepared for the

fact that when you do you will rarely, if ever, pick up the 70-200 again.