HS BB w/5D Mkll

rwells · January 8, 2009

I was curious about my 5D Mkll's low light focusing, so I shot a game last night to find out.

This particular gym ranks at, or is tied for the top, of the worst lit HS gym's that I have ever been to.

This gym was dark. The lights were pulsing at an amazingly slow 3 cycles per second. (never seen that before) "hot spots", but of course, not under the baskets.

A buddy (also a working photog), was using his 40D. It was so dark in the gym, he couldn't even get usable pics without using a flash.
BTW: We swapped cameras, and IMHO, the 5D Mkll locked focus faster than the 40D. Both bodies were using a 70-200 f/2.8L lens. YMMV

Anyway, this was a good test for the 5D Mkll, not only for focus, but for high ISO. I used AI Servo, center focus w/the 6 assist points enabled.

BTW: the 70-200 f/2.8L is an excellent basketball lens on a FF body! Full length shots under the basket, or good shots cross-court.

The following shots were: camera: manual setting - ISO 12800 - f/2.8 - 1/500 - shot with 70-200 f/2.8L IS. Some of the shots were still underexposed by 1 stop, so I had to bring them up in post. All were shot JPG. (Yes, I know all about RAW

) High ISO NR was set at the "standard" setting.

Other than cropping some of these, and bringing up the exposure on some, nothing else was done. Especially: No noise reduction software was used on any of these. Do they need it? Heck yeah, but I thought you wanted to see them without the noise reduction. :wink

Of course they would look a lot better if processed normally, but I was just testing the camera. Thought you'd like to see what 12800 looks like.

Oh yeah, the focus: This camera focuses fast, even in low light. I did not have one singe instance where it would not immediately lock and hold focus. AI Servo...

1)

2)

3)

3b) cropped

4)

5) 1 1/2 stops underexposed. Brought up in post - hence more noise. (but, this does happen out there, ya know!)

6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

There you have it. The 5D Mkll shooting sports :rofl

jonh68 · January 8, 2009

Lets see if I can cut and past the standard remarks.

"It would have been better to shoot RAW. You would have more control over the picture."

"You should have used flash to fill in and the noise would have been better so you could use a lower ISO."

"Why did you use the 5DII? You have better cameras for sports."

"You didn't get the ball in picture 8."

Ok, Great pictures for the circumstances.

D

ian408 · January 8, 2009

Hey John, Standard remarks don't apply here--reading is hard

rwells wrote:

"Of course they would look a lot better if processed normally, but I was just testing the camera" and "Thought you'd like to see what 12800 looks like"

I'd also like to know why you say "Why did you use the 5DII? You have better cameras for sports.". Honestly, there are folks producing great product with much lesser cameras than this one and I would argue that a good photographer who knows his B-ball (sport) and is skilled in his craft could shoot and get decent results with a G9. The whole "you need a [insert better camera here] to shoot sports" argument is silly.

rwells · January 8, 2009

ian408 wrote:

Hey John, Standard remarks don't apply here--reading is hard

I'd also like to know why you say "Why did you use the 5DII? You have better cameras for sports.". Honestly, there are folks producing great product with much lesser cameras than this one and I would argue that a good photographer who knows his B-ball (sport) and is skilled in his craft could shoot and get decent results with a G9. The whole "you need a [insert better camera here] to shoot sports" argument is silly.

Hi Ian,

Jon and I have laughed at all those remarks in the past here. He's just joking around, being facetious.

He's a good sports photog and knows what he's doing. He knows all that you say is true.

I posted about using the original 5D for sports last year, and some where shaking their heads. When the topic of "sports cameras" comes up, most are convinced (unfounded to me) to only think the 1D series Canon & Nikon equivalent bodies will do a good job. (I used to use a 1DMkll body) I've changed my specialty now, but used to shoot only sports for a living. It always tickles me (and Jon) when people say so-&-so isn't a good sports camera due to "burst rate". I don't like "spray & pray" shooting. --- I DON'T CARE ABOUT BURST RATE!

One huge advantage I found using FF was the ability to crop heavy & still have a very usable image. The 5D Mkll just adds to this with 21Mp. Now, add that you can get usable images at a FULL two stops less light, WOW... It's just like for $2.699.00, I just bought a 70-200 f/1.4L lens upgrade

I had good results using the original 5D for sports, although tracking was not that great, it never really played an issue for me. This 5D Mkll on the other hand, I believe will be more than "just fine" when used for most sports. (dependent on your sport, of course) And, you still have all the other advantages of a FF body, like when your shooting non-sports stuff

Anyway, just posted to show how the 5D Mkll handled a very bad gym. That's why I didn't do the normal processing to spruce up the images, so that people could see pretty much how the camera handles very high ISO shooting in a "non-controlled" environment.

(Thanks for the laugh Jon

)

Thanks for looking and posting

Ekaj · January 8, 2009

They would probably look good in newsprint.

They seem very noisy to me. I bought the 5dmk2 and really tried to like it, but ultimately I had to sell it and go back to Nikon. Have you tried a d700 in this lighting?

ian408 · January 8, 2009

rwells wrote:

Hi Ian,

Jon and I have laughed at all those remarks in the past here. He's just joking around, being facetious. He's a good sports photog and knows what he's doing. He knows all that you say is true.

I figured as much. Good

And yes, he is a good shooter

clemensphoto's · January 8, 2009

Randy,

These are really great shots for the circumstances.

rwells · January 8, 2009

Ekaj wrote:

They would probably look good in newsprint.

They seem very noisy to me. I bought the 5dmk2 and really tried to like it, but ultimately I had to sell it and go back to Nikon. Have you tried a d700 in this lighting?

Hey Ekaj,

Yep, they are noisy. I don't think you got the point of my posting of these images in their "non-refined" state.

I do believe that normal high ISO image processing techniques would have made these images very useful, not just for newsprint. But, I didn't do that on these so that people could see what the camera will do under bad conditions. I don't know of ANY camera that can shoot that high of ISO and still have the pics underexposed by 1 ~ 1 1/2 stops and NOT have noise. The technology is not there yet.

The key to how well the 5D Mkll did with these is this fact: Excerpt from Luminous Landscape, Expose Right; (Extremely useful information)

"This realization carries with it a number of important lessons, the most important of them being that if you do not use the right-hand fifth of the histogram for recording some of your image you are in fact wasting fully half of the available encoding levels of your camera."

So, as you now see, these pics being 1 ~ 1 1/2 stops under-exposed and extremely high ISO is as bad as it gets... Only using less than half of the data that a properly exposed image would. Personally, under those conditions, I think they look pretty good.

I have not tried a D700, but seriously doubt that it would have done any better under these conditions. I have not read any testing reviews that would lead me to believe any different either.

Images shot with the 5D Mkll that are properly exposed (to the right) do not have this much noise. But, that goes for any camera. Also, the "High ISO Noise Reduction" setting was on normal, not strong. I also would normally use NoiseNinja on any high ISO image. I didn't on these just to show what comes out under the specified conditions.

Are you saying the D700 can shoot ISO 12800, underexposed images by an average of 1 stop, and have cleaner images than this when pushed in post?

Please do post up some D700 ISO 12800 underexposed images that were brought up in post. I would genuinely be interested to see them.

Maybe Jon can also contribute the same. Come on Jon, I know ALL your pictures aren't exposed perfect

Anxiously waiting..............

ian408 · January 8, 2009

rwells wrote:

Anxiously waiting..............

Me too.

The D3 does amazingly well and I'd expect no less from the D700. I can't compare either to the 5dmkII (don't own a 5d or d700) but based on what I've seen, I think the D3 has a slight edge in the low light/high ISO department.

Oh, I should add that again, properly exposed counts for a lot in post processing.

jonh68 · January 8, 2009

Please do post up some D700 ISO 12800 underexposed images that were brought up in post. I would genuinely be interested to see them.

Maybe Jon can also contribute the same. Come on Jon, I know ALL your pictures aren't exposed perfect

The D700 has magical pixel dust that exposes properly AND magically gets the players in position for the perfect face shots with no elbows in the way. I would post but I would then be the object of internet scorn for posting doctored pictures.

Seriously, I like stretching out my camera to see what it can and can't do. Thanks for posting these. I think it helps the user be confident in situations where there are not alternatives or you are caught with your pants down and unprepared for the moment. I was shooting a sunset with my D700 and I had my 17-35 and 80-200. I couldn't get the framing just right as I need about a 50mm reach. I grabbed my 18-200 and framed it perfectly. I lost some MP's on the DX crop, but I got my shot the way I wanted it framed.

I am more concerned about the final product than how it got there.

kdog · January 8, 2009

I think these shots look great! Especially considering ISO12800 and pushed a stop or two in post. That's insane!

I'm amazed to hear that the servo tracks so well. Even the 1DMIII is supposed to have trouble tracking in some circumstances.

BTW, DXO labs DxOMark sensor ratings (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor) for the D3/700 and 5DMII/1DsMIII are virtually identical in all categories, with a tiny edge to Nikon on noise, and a tiny edge to Canon on color depth. All of those cameras are at the very top of the chart as compared to everything else in the industry right now.

Anyway, very interesting and worthwhile post.

Cheers,
-joel

rwells · January 8, 2009

ian408 wrote:

Oh, I should add that again, properly exposed counts for a lot in post processing.

Full 50% of data recorded is in the "right" 1/5th histogram (sensor) block.

If you have no other choice than to underexpose by a stop or more, it's gonna be bad. Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc...

I'd still like to see em' fellas... Even the D3 under the same constraints.

rwells · January 8, 2009

Here's a pic at ISO 6400 - f/2.8 - 1/500 --- just to show how dark it was there. Notice how closer to the basket the light really falls off.

1)

These pics (ISO 12800 - f/2.8 - 1/500) are the original & exposure pushed in post. As you can see, pushing an under-exposed image will bill bring out all the noise gremlins you could possibly hope for.

There is just no substitute for proper exposure to control noise, especially at high ISO.

2) Original

3) pushed (a bit too much) in post processing

4) ISO 12800 - f/2.8 - 1/500 --- A little NoiseNinja --- what's not to like? Noise wise...

Hope that helps someone...

rwells · January 8, 2009

kdog wrote:

I think these shots look great! Especially considering ISO12800 and pushed a stop or two in post. That's insane! I'm amazed to hear that the servo tracks so well. Even the 1DMIII is supposed to have trouble tracking in some circumstances.

BTW, DXO labs DxOMark sensor ratings (http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor) for the D3/700 and 5DMII/1DsMIII are virtually identical in all categories, with a tiny edge to Nikon on noise, and a tiny edge to Canon on color depth. All of those cameras are at the very top of the chart as compared to everything else in the industry right now.

Anyway, very interesting and worthwhile post.

Cheers,
-joel

Hey Joel,

My main intent on the outing was to test the low-light focus & tracking. The high ISO was an unscheduled test

I was very pleased with how fast the focus locked on, even in such dim surroundings & subjects. Tracking never lost a beat. Never dropped focus.

Those kind of reviews are what convince me that the top Canon's & Nikon's are on a level playing field as to high ISO.

I'm just glad I've got one

jonh68 · January 8, 2009

Those kind of reviews are what convince me that the top Canon's & Nikon's are on a level playing field as to high ISO.

Which is good for us invested in either system. It's an arms race, one company is not going to be the top dog long because other will match or leapfrog.

ian408 · January 8, 2009

jonh68 wrote:

Which is good for us invested in either system. It's an arms race, one company is not going to be the top dog long because other will match or leapfrog.

I agree, this really is best for all.

pathfinder · January 8, 2009

Randy,

I want to commend you for posting these images. I think they are a great demonstration of just how much photography has changed. How many color images of HS BB did we see when folks shot film??

One question about these images, that you had the temerity to shoot as jpgs

, how did you manage your color balance? Custom, tungsten, fluorescent, whatever? If the lights were cycling at 3 cps, did this seem to affect color balance from frame to frame? I think I see some color balance variation in these images.

Just think of being able to shoot ISO 6400 usefully!

rwells · January 8, 2009

pathfinder wrote:

Randy,

I want to commend you for posting these images. I think they are a great demonstration of just how much photography has changed. How many color images of HS BB did we see when folks shot film??

One question about these images, that you had the temerity to shoot as jpgs , how did you manage your color balance? Custom, tungsten, fluorescent, whatever? If the lights were cycling at 3 cps, did this seem to affect color balance from frame to frame? I think I see some color balance variation in these images.

Just think of being able to shoot ISO 6400 usefully!

Thanks Jim, I think...

Had to look up "temerity": foolish or rash boldness; foolhardiness; recklessness

I think that pretty much sum's me up

These new camera's are delivering capabilities we only dreamed about a few short years ago, and I mean about 2. I think they are nearing nothing short of fantastic.

Like I stated earlier, how much would a new lens cost that gave us 2 stops better performance? 70-200 f/1.4 - etc... I think in those terms, these new bodies are a bargain, not even counting the other cool stuff they deliver.

To your question, if I may be so reckless:

As you are very well aware, I am an ExpoDisk proponent. When I first got there, I did my usual thing of putting the ExpoDisk on the lens and shooting at the lights from the court. I shot a little while and noticed the lights cycling on the ceiling, very slowly. I knew that was going to be an issue.

So, I put the ExpoDisk on the lens again, this time setting the shutter speed to 1/20 second and shot the lights. I figured this would get the full cycle in on the shot.

I have read many post that say this just won't work well when lights are cycling, but I have used this method for over 2 years with very good results. YMMV

I shot about 600 shots that night. (3 games). The WB was really fairly consistent, although I did have to tweak some in PS with the dropper in a "levels" layer. A few where so far off, I don't know if I could have saved them. Maybe, but it wasn't worth the effort on these shots. (no pay)

I didn't really spend much effort on these due to my not shooting them for pay.

I didn't shoot RAW because of the processing time involved & it didn't matter if none of them came out. I was really just testing the focus on the 5D Mkll. Also, and this may sick the dogs on me, but I can do most everything I need to on a sports picture in JPG. Thousands of successful pictures prove this is valid logic for me.

As you are by now well aware with your 5D Mkll, ISO 6400 images properly exposed shows almost no noise.

How cool is that

Hope that helps...

pathfinder · January 8, 2009

Thanks Randy.

I fully understand sports shooters needs to shoot jpgs. TIme is money, and the next game is already starting.

I thought you might have done a custom white balance, but wasn't sure, and just wanted clarification.

The cycling of the lights was the other thing I was curious about its effect, and you answered that question as well. Thanks again.

70-200 f1.4 WOW now that's quite a lens!!

rwells · January 8, 2009

pathfinder wrote:

Thanks Randy.

I fully understand sports shooters needs to shoot jpgs. TIme is money, and the next game is already starting.

I thought you might have done a custom white balance, but wasn't sure, and just wanted clarification.

The cycling of the lights was the other thing I was curious about its effect, and you answered that question as well. Thanks again.

70-200 f1.4 WOW now that's quite a lens!!

I will have to say though, I put a 580EXll on the 5D Mkll at the game and got some really weird results. Not good weird, bad weird. Un-usable weird

I still don't know what's up with this body and the 580XX flashes. No way I would trust shooting something important with this body and flash at this point. Going to have to figure out some logical testing to run down what's going on with the combo. Even shooting the camera & flash on manual gave really strange results.

Ann McRae · January 8, 2009

Hi Randy

Thank you for your insight. These are amazing!

ann

rwells · January 8, 2009

Ann McRae wrote:

Hi Randy

Thank you for your insight. These are amazing!

ann

How are you doing Ann?

These new bodies from Canon & Nikon are really changing the things you can now do with your photography, and how you do it.

As you know, even one more stop in sports shooting is HUGE!!! Two is

I'm enjoying this camera (except for some strangeness using flash).

It's been a long time since I've really "enjoyed" a camera this much. I think my Canon F1 was the last that fit that bill, till now. (The 5D is still a great camera, although it's been very lonely since the Mkll came home :cry )

Anyway, just posted em' up so curious people could see it's prowess.

Swartzy · January 9, 2009

Thanks for posting these Randy. Many many...too many talk about charts and noise without showing real life application. These examples at such an insane ISO, even underexposed (holy cow you were in a cave!) looking this good is fascinating.

I just shot Girls BB last night using the 5D (regular) and an 85 f/1.8...great for under the basket and about mid court in. Shot it at f/2.2, 1/640th, ISO 3200. The focus (first time I tried the 5D here) was not real fast or as accurate as I had hoped but did come away with some tack sharp images. The other body was the 40D w/70-200 f/2.8. The 40D is certainly an improvement from it's predecessors but still doesn't "nail" the shots like the Mark II N.

Some buddies just recieved their 5D MKII so was very curious as to how quickly this would focus. In dark venues (think weddings), the 5D can hunt at times which drives me crazy. Guess I'll be keeping my eye on the wallet to save for the new 5D. The cropping would be a huge advantage....although the thought of shooting a big event in RAW kind of makes me want to buy stock in Seagate...

Thanks for taking the time with your explanations...certainly answered all my questions.

rwells · January 9, 2009

Swartzy wrote:

Thanks for posting these Randy. Many many...too many talk about charts and noise without showing real life application. These examples at such an insane ISO, even underexposed (holy cow you were in a cave!) looking this good is fascinating.

I just shot Girls BB last night using the 5D (regular) and an 85 f/1.8...great for under the basket and about mid court in. Shot it at f/2.2, 1/640th, ISO 3200. The focus (first time I tried the 5D here) was not real fast or as accurate as I had hoped but did come away with some tack sharp images. The other body was the 40D w/70-200 f/2.8. The 40D is certainly an improvement from it's predecessors but still doesn't "nail" the shots like the Mark II N.

Some buddies just received their 5D MKII so was very curious as to how quickly this would focus. In dark venues (think weddings), the 5D can hunt at times which drives me crazy. Guess I'll be keeping my eye on the wallet to save for the new 5D. The cropping would be a huge advantage....although the thought of shooting a big event in RAW kind of makes me want to buy stock in Seagate...

Thanks for taking the time with your explanations...certainly answered all my questions.

Hey Dave,

Glad you got some use out of the pics and info.

I shot some BB last season with my 5D (regular) and was not super impressed with the focus speed. Although, I will also state that it had little negative affect on me or my pics.

The 5D Mkll is much faster, IMHO.

One note of possible caution:

I know you shoot weddings, therefore probably use a 580xx flash sometimes.

I have experienced some very strange exposures with the Mkll & a 580EX, and (2) 580EXll flashes. I posted about it here.

Thanks for your comments

Zanotti · January 11, 2009

Very nice series Randy, thanks for posting this.

Will you use the 5DM2 for your rodeo shots this year? Is it fast enough, responsive enough, tough enough for that as well?

Z

rwells · January 12, 2009

Zanotti wrote:

Very nice series Randy, thanks for posting this.

Will you use the 5DM2 for your rodeo shots this year? Is it fast enough, responsive enough, tough enough for that as well?

Z

Hey Z,

I think it's fast enough, and responsive enough. Tough enough? There's lots of abuse a rodeo camera is subjected to; from heat, dust, dirt, mud, rain and physical abuse. Running from bulls, jumping on fences, etc...

This abuse took it's toll on a 30D and a 1DMkll. (yes, even a tank like the 1DMkll)

I may be too emotionally attached to this new camera to submit it to that kind of torture

We'll see...

HS BB w/5D Mkll

Comments