5DII or 1DIIN for Highschool Basketball?

jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
edited November 30, 2009 in Cameras
I'll be shooting basketball for the first time next week. I have a 5DII and a 1DIIN. I think my only applicable lens is a 24-70L. I'm thinking the high ISO performance of the 5DII will outweigh the AF and speed of the 1DIIN, yes? The 1DIIN is no better than my old 40D in that regard.

I was also thinking of getting an 85/1.8, think I'd need that?

A second strobe and pocket wizards is not really in the budget right now, but if that is the only way to shoot I may be able to figure out a way to make it happen.
-Jack

An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.

Comments

  • rwellsrwells Registered Users Posts: 6,084 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    It really depends on your gym lighting...

    If it's not bad (yeah right!), then I'd use the 1DMkIIN. If it's dark, I'd use the 5DMkII. Ive used both successfully.

    Also, on the FF, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a great BB lens!

    Here is some specific info and examples.

    The 85 1.8 is a fast lens, and focuses fast also.

    > Take both and try each out under the same conditions. I think the 5DMkII will surprise you ~ YMMV
    Randy
  • ivarivar Registered Users Posts: 8,395 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    rwells wrote:
    Also, on the FF, the 70-200 f/2.8 is a great BB lens!
    15524779-Ti.gif I'd bring something longer. I think the 24-70 is going to be short on a FF for shooting sports. I'd bring it, but also bring something longer if you have it (or can borrow/rent it).
    Ivar
    www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    ivar wrote:
    15524779-Ti.gif I'd bring something longer. I think the 24-70 is going to be short on a FF for shooting sports. I'd bring it, but also bring something longer if you have it (or can borrow/rent it).

    I have a 70-200/4IS, but I imagine that won't be fast enough. I'm going to try to shoot from the baseline and get full body shots of goal action, so I would think that 70 or 85mm could get me there.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    While 5D2's noise handling at high ISO values is great, its AF is *exteremly slow* in a dark situations. It is a landscape/portrait body, not a sport one. I'm not even talking about 3fps.
    If 1D series body is beyond your limits $-wise, consider 7D.
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • rwellsrwells Registered Users Posts: 6,084 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    Nikolai wrote:
    While 5D2's noise handling at high ISO values is great, its AF is *exteremly slow* in a dark situations. It is a landscape/portrait body, not a sport one. I'm not even talking about 3fps.
    If 1D series body is beyond your limits $-wise, consider 7D.

    I've owned 1D bodies, xxD and FF. I just don't get these type of comments ne_nau.gif

    It's been a RARE case that I've had issues with ANY Canon body shooting sports ~ Guess I just don't get it ~ I've shot and sold hundreds of sports images, maybe I've just been lucky...
    Randy
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    rwells - thanks for the valuable info. As we can see, the 5DII AF is more than up to the task, and the noise is acceptable. Parents will be too busy fawning over their bb stars to notice the banding in the black regions of the photo.

    Nikolai - I can abide people responding without reading a whole thread when it gets very long, but not even reading the OP is a pet peeve of mine. I currently own a 5DII and a 1DIIN. I said this in the OP.

    Also I disagree about the AF. Sure it's not as good as my 1D, but it is better than the 40D I used to have. It gets a bad rap. A lot of the 5DII AF talk is hyperbole, IMO. Check out rwells' low light basketball pics. AF looks good to me.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • craig_dcraig_d Registered Users Posts: 911 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    I'm surprised nobody has yet suggested that you take BOTH cameras with you, with different lenses mounted. The 24-70 f/2.8 will be nice for broad context shots, but unless you're standing practically under the basket it will be useless for close shots of slam-dunks. A 70-200 f/2.8 will complement that nicely.

    I assume the 1D2N is a 1.3x crop model? If so, I would be inclined to put the 24-70 on it, and the 70-200 on the 5D2. This should give you sufficient coverage (you probably won't really need 24mm) with a useful bit of overlap in the middle (24-70 on 1.3x being equivalent to 31-91 on FF). Keep the two cameras ready at all times so that you can easily switch between them.

    Btw, I wonder if the disagreement over the 5D2's AF speed has anything to do with the different lenses that people use? My understanding is that the 1D series autofocuses faster with slow lenses than the 5D2, but I don't think you'll see as much of a difference with a fast lens.
    http://craigd.smugmug.com

    Got bored with digital and went back to film.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    I will take both bodies, I guess I was just hoping to learn if one was so much better than the other so as to not even bother with the other.

    And I do hope to be right under the basket for many shots! :D
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • NikolaiNikolai Registered Users Posts: 19,035 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    I guess it depends a lot on particulars. For me low light is a light after sunset, helped or not with the HS stadium lights. The latter typically vary from barely acceptable to mediocre. If your guys situation is consistently different, and especially if you're using central AF point only (my main AF point is on the farther corner of the diamond) - then it's different and my experience can't help. Sorry. ne_nau.gif
    "May the f/stop be with you!"
  • Ric GrupeRic Grupe Registered Users Posts: 9,522 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    rwells wrote:
    I've owned 1D bodies, xxD and FF. I just don't get these type of comments ne_nau.gif

    It's been a RARE case that I've had issues with ANY Canon body shooting sports ~ Guess I just don't get it ~ I've shot and sold hundreds of sports images, maybe I've just been lucky...

    The PLAYERS in action not the CHEERLEADERS!!!rolleyes1.gifrolleyes
  • insanefredinsanefred Registered Users Posts: 604 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    jmphotocraft wrote:
    I have a 70-200/4IS, but I imagine that won't be fast enough. I'm going to try to shoot from the baseline and get full body shots of goal action, so I would think that 70 or 85mm could get me there.

    And there you were, bragging about f/4 lenses in another thread. iloveyou.gifscratch
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited November 30, 2009
    insanefred wrote:
    And there you were, bragging about f/4 lenses in another thread. iloveyou.gifscratch

    haha. I was just pointing out that Nikon has no 70-200/4. I will have a 70-200/2.8 someday, but not at the expense of selling my f/4. It's too portable. And sharp.
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
Sign In or Register to comment.