Canon 24-105 4L, 70-200 2.8L, and Rebel T4i issues

[C_Dave45]

Had to replace my old gear and bought two Canon lenses off kijiji.
24-105 4L and the 2.8L 70-200. Was contemplating the Tamron 70-200 2.8 brand new, but ended up with the used Canon. Now I'm not sure that was the wisest decision.
A few concerns:
1: the shots taken with the 24-105 don't "wow" me. I rented one previously and I was impressed with the results. All on the same body. EOS 650.
2: The 70-200 won't focus on distant subjects when at the wider range (70mm) I have to zoom in for it to "lock".
3: Some shots are tack sharp....others, the focus seems just a hair off, even though focusing locked in.
4: seems slow to follow a subject moving towards me on AI SERVO mode.
5: in continuous shooting mode I can only get 3 shots in the buffer (the ltitle number in uper right corner of viewfinder). 6 If I shoot RAW even though I've put in a faster SD card.

Can I send these lenses in to Canon for checking/calibration?
How long does that usually take?
Is it expensive?
Or am I just a crappy photographer.

Frustrated with my shots.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Can you post some samples? Some of these issues might just be technique or settings related. I think you have a Rebel T4i but please correct me if I'm wrong.

My thoughts on your concerns:

1) The 24-105L is an average lens. It's a good "general purpose" lens but it's nothing special and I wouldn't say it has a "wow" factor. It's also is more like an F5.2 lens than F4 as far as light transmission goes which is getting pretty slow. It's a popular lens for the price, but it's nothing special. If you're being critical, the 24-105 probably isn't going to impress. It's more of a jack of all trades lens, and doesn't really excel anywhere. If the previous one you tried impressed you, it's possible you have a bad copy or calibration issues with the current one.

2) Distant as in infinity focus? Or just further away than average? As an experiment, put the camera in live view (forcing it to use contrast-detect AF) and see if you still have issues focusing at a distance at 70mm when you rule out the PDAF system. If it only has trouble focusing when you use PDAF (phase detect AF, the normal viewfinder AF), then it might be a calibration issue assuming you have a good AF target. Remember your camera needs contrast to focus, so if you're shooting into the sun or something extremely dark or low-contrast, it won't be accurate.

3) The AF system in the T4i is pretty average. You can't expect the accuracy and consistency of a higher-end camera body. It isn't going to nail every shot, but if it's REALLY bad, then there's something else probably going on. The other thing is that none of the Rebel line has AF micro adjustment, so if something is off with the PDAF between your lens and body, you can't fix it yourself. PDAF systems aren't perfect either, they have a small amount of variation - if you focus on the same thing 10 times, it likely won't focus *precisely* the same every time as there are just too many variables. If you're pixel peeping, you're going to see some AF variance. Again, it should be pretty good though - if your keeper rate is terrible, chances are there is something else going on.

4) Slow to track is probably the T5i AF system, it's just not great. Subjects moving toward or away from the camera are the absolute hardest things to track, and this struggle magnified the closer the subject is to the camera. If you have a dog or something running head-on very quickly at the camera I would be surprised if you could get many keepers. That's a difficult task even with pro gear. The system also needs light and a contrasty target to focus it's best.

5) Even with a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD card, the RAW buffer on a T4i is only 6 frames, which will go by really fast. The buffer maxes out at 3 frames if you shoot RAW + JPEG which is probably what you had it set on when you got capped at 3. If you shoot JPEG only you should be able to get around 15 frames in before it slows to a crawl. The faster card isn't going to do much for buffer depth, it will just allow the buffer to clear faster, and raise your minimum FPS very slightly if you try to keep shooting after the buffer is full.

After some controlled testing, if you're convinced there is an AF issue with your camera body and the 70-200, you can send the camera and lens into Canon. You need to send both in if you want proper calibration. If they are under warranty you might get lucky with a free fix, otherwise I am not sure what the charge would be - you can always give them a call. Turnaround time varies a lot with the camera manufacturers. Canon has a couple locations in Calgary, not sure if they are still doing repairs out of them or not.

You aren't a crappy photographer, from what you describe, your frustrations are most likely a mixture of technique and asking a bit too much of your gear. Also if you can post some samples of what's frustrating you it will help us diagnose them.

[C_Dave45]

So basically I've got about $4,000 of "average" gear that takes shitty pictures?

I dunno...I'm just kind of fed up with trying to spend more and more money and not get results. Feel like dumping it all and forgetting about photography.
I expected more from a $1200 and $2,000 "L" series glass.
My 70-200 F4L didn't have any of these problems with the T4i. But I needed something faster for hockey pictures.
And like I said, when I rented the 24-105, I WAS wowed with the results.

I fuckin give up.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by C_Dave45
So basically I've got about $4,000 of "average" gear that takes shitty pictures?

I dunno...I'm just kind of fed up with trying to spend more and more money and not get results. Feel like dumping it all and forgetting about photography.
I expected more from a $1200 and $2,000 "L" series glass.
My 70-200 F4L didn't have any of these problems with the T4i. But I needed something faster for hockey pictures.
And like I said, when I rented the 24-105, I WAS wowed with the results.

I fuckin give up.

No I'm not saying that, you can get stunning pictures with your gear assuming A) you have proper technique B) you don't have any issues with calibration/hardware and C) you understand the limits of your gear. Photography has tons of variables, throwing money at problems doesn't always help. Also, everything in photography is a trade off. For example with your 70-200/2.8 you got 1 extra stop of light compared to your F4 version, but you also have a bigger, heavier, lens and significantly less DOF, making it all the more important that you nail focus because less of the image will be sharp.

If you want lots of keepers of a fast moving subject moving directly toward the camera, even the very best camera bodies struggle with that. It's pretty much the most difficult scenario for a modern AF system to deal with in photography. You are using an entry level camera body, and action photography is not one of it's strong points - there are going to be some limitations there whether you like it or not. If you're expecting great results in very difficult conditions you are probably going to be disappointed.

The 70-200/4 L is a good lens, the 70-200/2.8L Mk1 is as good, just with F2.8. Keep in mind as well that with Canon's 1.6 cop factor you're at 320mm equivalent on the long end of that zoom, and you need to be watching your shutter speed (general rule is 1/focal length minimum, so 1/320sec shutter speed at the very least), it has to be high enough to freeze your target AND negate any shaking on your end. Your 70-200/4 is going to be more forgiving because of the extra DOF at F4, even if your focus is slightly off you probably won't notice, especially on a crop body. Try set your new lens at F4 and see if you get similar results to your previous lens with regards to focus.

If you tried two 24-105L's on the same body, and one was great, then I would guess you either have a bad copy or calibration issues with the other one. Again, if you post some samples we can probably help more.

Why don't you post some samples of what's frustrating you and see if your 70-200/2.8 will focus at a distance in live view at 70mm. You need to do some troubleshooting before coming to any conclusions. Buying gear more suited to the task won't hurt, but it's also not a good solution until you've exhausted all other options. If you want to see if a particular piece of gear is going to make a big difference, rent it or borrow it first.

What are the conditions like in the hockey arenas you shoot in? Post some examples if you can and what settings you used. Maybe it's something silly that's causing you the headaches.

[msommers]

Dave what camera do you have again? EOS 650?!

I didn't read what Mark wrote (because it's a wall of text lol) but understand that your settings like shutter speed not fast enough, for example, can make things look shitty. Also understand that there is likely nothing wrong with your glass but likely the camera body isn't up to modern standard if you're comparing to pics online.

Post pics and be open to criticism.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by msommers
Dave what camera do you have again? EOS 650?!

I didn't read what Mark wrote (because it's a wall of text lol) but understand that your settings like shutter speed not fast enough, for example, can make things look shitty. Also understand that there is likely nothing wrong with your glass but likely the camera body isn't up to modern standard if you're comparing to pics online.

Post pics and be open to criticism.

I'm beginning to suspect the T4i is not the body I need to have. I figured I would spend money on glass before spending money on body. But I may be expecting too much.

(Responses in blue)


Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


No I'm not saying that, you can get stunning pictures with your gear assuming A) you have proper technique B) you don't have any issues with calibration/hardware and C) you understand the limits of your gear. Photography has tons of variables, throwing money at problems doesn't always help. Also, everything in photography is a trade off. For example with your 70-200/2.8 you got 1 extra stop of light compared to your F4 version, but you also have a bigger, heavier, lens and significantly less DOF, making it all the more important that you nail focus because less of the image will be sharp.

If you want lots of keepers of a fast moving subject moving directly toward the camera, even the very best camera bodies struggle with that. It's pretty much the most difficult scenario for a modern AF system to deal with in photography. You are using an entry level camera body, and action photography is not one of it's strong points - there are going to be some limitations there whether you like it or not. If you're expecting great results in very difficult conditions you are probably going to be disappointed.
Fair enough, that makes sense. I was thinking of jumping to the 7D. I just can't afford a full-frame, professional body.


The 70-200/4 L is a good lens, the 70-200/2.8L Mk1 is as good, just with F2.8. Keep in mind as well that with Canon's 1.6 cop factor you're at 320mm equivalent on the long end of that zoom, and you need to be watching your shutter speed (general rule is 1/focal length minimum, so 1/320sec shutter speed at the very least), it has to be high enough to freeze your target AND negate any shaking on your end.
I'm shooting wide open at full manual with "auto-ISO" and keep shutter at 1/500 or above, close to 1/1000

Your 70-200/4 is going to be more forgiving because of the extra DOF at F4, even if your focus is slightly off you probably won't notice, especially on a crop body. Try set your new lens at F4 and see if you get similar results to your previous lens with regards to focus.
For inside a hockey arena I need the 2.8 otherwise I need to be at 6400 ISO or higher for proper speed

If you tried two 24-105L's on the same body, and one was great, then I would guess you either have a bad copy or calibration issues with the other one. Again, if you post some samples we can probably help more.
That's why I thought it might be calibration, but hard to tell when it's completely different parameters. (subject, lighting, etc) I'll keep trying

Why don't you post some samples of what's frustrating you and see if your 70-200/2.8 will focus at a distance in live view at 70mm. You need to do some troubleshooting before coming to any conclusions. Buying gear more suited to the task won't hurt, but it's also not a good solution until you've exhausted all other options. If you want to see if a particular piece of gear is going to make a big difference, rent it or borrow it first.

What are the conditions like in the hockey arenas you shoot in? Post some examples if you can and what settings you used. Maybe it's something silly that's causing you the headaches.


5) Even with a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s SD card, the RAW buffer on a T4i is only 6 frames, which will go by really fast. The buffer maxes out at 3 frames if you shoot RAW + JPEG which is probably what you had it set on when you got capped at 3. If you shoot JPEG only you should be able to get around 15 frames in before it slows to a crawl. The faster card isn't going to do much for buffer depth, it will just allow the buffer to clear faster, and raise your minimum FPS very slightly if you try to keep shooting after the buffer is full.
I have a Lexar Professional 150 mB/s card. I get 6 in the buffer at RAW. When I switch to JPG only (not RAW + JPG) that drops to 3. Which doesn't make sense, but that's what I get.




Okay...the 3 photos in THIS (http://forums.beyond.ca/st2/januarys-quotpost-your-latest-picturequot-thread/showthread.php?s=&postid=4531281&highlight=fish+creek#post4531281) post are ones that I'm okay with...but not "WOW". Even though I posted them in that thread, I almost feel they're not worthy of the shots I see in there. First one was with the 24-105. Other two are the 70-200. (You can see the details in the EXIF info)

Here are shots I'm not impressed with at all:

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5530_zpsu0nn7mgw.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5530_zpsu0nn7mgw.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5529_zpsggccld8q.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5529_zpsggccld8q.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5580_zpswmlnyso8.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5580_zpswmlnyso8.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5551_zpsnyzs4h4r.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5551_zpsnyzs4h4r.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5571_zpsdzlrggwm.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5571_zpsdzlrggwm.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5582_zpsvcwkderd.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5582_zpsvcwkderd.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5584_zpspsxdncbu.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5584_zpspsxdncbu.jpg.html)
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Test%20shots/th_IMG_5532_zpsjk6kr3st.jpg (http://s123.photobucket.com/user/CalgaryDave/media/Test%20shots/IMG_5532_zpsjk6kr3st.jpg.html)

[sl888]

What AF points are you using?

[firebane]

are you using any filters on your lenses?

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by sl888
What AF points are you using?
I use just one center point and try to bullseye that on my subject.



Originally posted by firebane
are you using any filters on your lenses?
Just a UV filter.

[Mitsu3000gt]

The bird pictures in your link from Fish Creek are perfectly fine. Only comments I would make is that they look really saturated, maybe you have saturation turned up in-camera or something (or maybe you like that which is totally fine). The only other thing on the first picture is it's shot a F18 which was probably unnecessary - the picture turned out fine but your shutter speed was on the low side for birds and keep in mind at F18 you will start to get a negative impact on image quality due to diffraction. Above F11 or so, your pictures will actually get noticeably softer, even though depth of field increases.


Thanks for posting samples. I can't see the EXIF data so I can't comment on that.

Photo's 1,2, & 8 - that is literally one of the hardest situations for a camera's AF - something coming directly toward (or away) from the camera. From a distance, the black dog on white background is ideal (lots of contrast), but as the dog gets much closer and the AF point starts to be completely covered by the black dog, there is zero contrast there for the camera to focus on anymore.

The photos are dark because your camera meter is seeing 90% white snow and trying to average the exposure, and in that scenario it is going to underexpose a lot to preserve the highlights in the snow. Every camera will do this. You can try and spot meter the dog, but that will only work if you can keep the middle AF point on the dog the whole time - if it hits the snow the exposure will go to the other extreme. Try dialing in +1.0 or +2.0 EV of positive exposure compensation next time, and it will counter the camera's desire to expose for the snow (when using evaluative metering). Just don't expect miracles with head-on action, even the high end bodies can have trouble here.

White balance looks off too (snow looks blue), but 2 seconds of post processing would correct that. You could also take a custom WB reading using the snow and it would probably be pretty close.

Photo 3 is a black dog against sunlit snow, basically one of the highest dynamic range shots I can think of. No camera can expose for both - If you want the black dog exposed properly, the snow is going to be completely blown out. Extremely bright situations can also screw with the AF sensor. If you want your dog exposed properly in this situation your best bet is probably to spot meter it's face, and accept that the snow is going to be completely blown out. Stuff like this is very difficult for the camera to get right by itself - ideally you would be able to process it a bit after the fact.

Photo 4 looks really soft to me - not sure if the camera just missed focus, or if that is the 70mm AF issue you are talking about at infinity with your 70-200. Assuming that's not a heavy crop, it looks soft even at that small size. Not sure what's going on there - more tests would have to be done. It's also underexposed - shooting in all this snow overwhelms the camera's meter. For winter scenes, you almost always need to dial in positive exposure compensation unless you're going to be processing it later from RAW.

Photos 5 & 7 look perfectly fine to me at the size I can view them at. Nothing offensive about them. 5 is a little bit underexposed from all the snow, that's about it. White balance seems good.

Photo 6 is just an uninteresting photo. Exposure seems about right for the subjects. Hard to tell how sharp it is given the size. Zooming out a little more would help as the heads are cut off.

Your buffer issue is quite strange. I can't imagine a scenario where you would have a smaller buffer with JPEG than RAW. The camera spec is a 15-20 JPEG buffer. You only get 3 in the buffer when the camera's set to RAW+JPEG which is why I thought for sure that's what you were doing. If you're 100% sure you're just shooting JPEG (sounds like you are) then I have no idea why it's only giving you 3 shots. That's very strange, and wouldn''t be affected by the memory card you're using.

If you're looking at the 7D, keep in mind it's almost 7 years old now - the 7D Mk II would be the way to go, but unfortunately it's pretty spendy. You could try renting one and seeing if you feel it solves any of your AF problems.

Sorry that was super long, hope it helps.

[sl888]

How much cropping was done for those 3 bird shots? Can we see originals?

[Wakalimasu]

The T4i isn't the best for fast action photography. You need something with better sensors and more FPS. Canon 7D, 70D or 7Dm2 are all great sports / wildlife cameras. You can probably get the 7D or 70D cheap used. I picked up a 70D after my T4i got stolen and I bring it everywhere. Only thing I don't like about it is that it won't autofocus at F8 but 7D2 isn't that big of a jump for me to upgrade into.


Difference between the 7D2 vs 70D

http://bokeh.digitalrev.com/article/canon-7d-mark-ii-vs-70d-which-should-you-buy

7D2 is more expensive but has more frame rates, buffer and sensors. 7D2 is the fastest crop sensor right now, but Nikon is countering with the D500 in March which seems to kill the Canon ><.

24-105 f/4L is a pretty mediocre lens now. It needs a lot of light to be sharp.

https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5492/10397267543_8a54717d0d_z.jpg

Same set up. T4I and 24-105F/4L but I had to use a flash. If you are sticking with a crop body. I would recommend the Canon EFS 17-55 2.8. I would use the 17-55 over the 24-105 everytime I would think of putting the 24-105 on. I also use my 50 1.4 a lot of those times as well though.

70-200L f2.8 IS is an amazing lens though. I never had any issues with it when I had access to one.

I have some focusing issue with my 100-400 L II f4.5-5.6. It feels like its trying to focus at the wrong end of the focus spectrum, it just keeps hunting out of focus. I have to move the focus ring to the other end but after that it focus's very fast and it's very sharp.

Your buffer issue also

JPEG Large/Fine: Approx. 22 Shots
RAW: Approx. 6 Shots
RAW+JPEG Large/Fine: 3 Shots

Seems like it somehow thinks it's in Raw+Jpg Mode. I remember about 20+ shots in Jpg.

If you are in the NE or around the airport I can let you try my 70D and see if there are any differences between the body or the lenses. Sometimes you need to test a 2nd body to see if it's really the lens or the body.

[ga16i]

What AF mode are you using? AI Servo?
I also assume you're using the optical viewfinder at the back of the camera and not using liveview.

[C_Dave45]

Yeah I don't understand why my buffer count is so low. Specs say 22 and I'm only getting 3 in jpg.
6 in RAW, and 2 in RAW+jpg.

I never use liveview. Ever. And yes AI SERVO when shooting action.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Dave one thing I just thought of - try turning off any in-camera processing effects, starting with chromatic abrasion reduction (that one is usually processor heavy). If that doesn't work, turn off the following one by one and see if it helps: high ISO noise reduction, long exposure noise reduction, highlight tone priority, lens distortion correction, etc (any that apply). If you turn those off, I bet that increases your JPEG buffer. Failing that, try a reset.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Dave one thing I just thought of - try turning off any in-camera processing effects, starting with chromatic abrasion reduction (that one is usually processor heavy). If that doesn't work, turn off the following one by one and see if it helps: high ISO noise reduction, long exposure noise reduction, highlight tone priority, lens distortion correction, etc (any that apply). If you turn those off, I bet that increases your JPEG buffer. Failing that, try a reset.
Heyyyy...NOW we're getting somewhere.
I had "high ISO NR" on. Turned that off and the buffer has now jumped up to 9.
I can't seem to find any other processing effects turned on.

Here's a question. I had put Magic Lantern onto the camera through the SD card. I've since formatted that card, so the program is no longer there. Might that have changed anything?
(Please don't say it could have buggered something in my bios/rom?)

[Mitsu3000gt]

I've never used magic lantern, I can't comment with any accuracy on that. From what I understand I don't think there is much risk.

I bet there is something else turned on though, if you're only up to 9. Go to Camera Menu1 --> Lens peripheral illumination --> Chromatic Aberration Correction --> DISABLE (if it's not already).

High ISO noise reduction is off, you said.

Turn Multi Shot Noise Reduction off too.

Any shots above ISO 12,800 will also result in a smaller buffer.

If all those things are for sure off, you should be getting your 15-20 shots.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
I've never used magic lantern, I can't comment with any accuracy on that. From what I understand I don't think there is much risk.
Yeah, everything I read says I should be safe on that

I bet there is something else turned on though, if you're only up to 9. Go to Camera Menu1 --&gt; Lens peripheral illumination --&gt; Chromatic Aberration Correction --&gt; DISABLE (if it's not already).
Those both off

High ISO noise reduction is off, you said.

Turn Multi Shot Noise Reduction off too.
Don't see a menu option for that.

Any shots above ISO 12,800 will also result in a smaller buffer.
P, TV, Av, and M modes are maxed at 6400 ISO

If all those things are for sure off, you should be getting your 15-20 shots.

Okay...so I reset everything back to factory default. The little "buffer" number inside my viewfinder still says "9"...but I just started shooting and it did well over 22 shots at it's spec'd FPS. So "9" must be just the highest number displayed.

Thank GOD I got THAT little thing sorted out. Now to work on those other issues.

Thanks Mitsu...I wouldn't have figured that out without your suggestion.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Okay...so I reset everything back to factory default. The little &quot;buffer&quot; number inside my viewfinder still says &quot;9&quot;...but I just started shooting and it did well over 22 shots at it's spec'd FPS. So &quot;9&quot; must be just the highest number displayed.

Thank GOD I got THAT little thing sorted out. Now to work on those other issues.

Thanks Mitsu...I wouldn't have figured that out without your suggestion.

NP, sounds like you're good to go. The "r" number is just an estimate, your actual shots will be higher, as it sounds like you figured out.

A lot of your frustrations with the pictures you posted too were mostly settings related, which I think is good news. Challenging AF scenarios though is where your camera will hold you back. If you're willing to shoot RAW and learn Lightroom or some other piece of software for simple processing, you will likely see a huge difference as well compared to everything straight out of the camera. Not sure if you're already doing that or not.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt


NP, sounds like you're good to go. The &quot;r&quot; number is just an estimate, your actual shots will be higher, as it sounds like you figured out.

A lot of your frustrations with the pictures you posted too were mostly settings related, which I think is good news. Challenging AF scenarios though is where your camera will hold you back. If you're willing to shoot RAW and learn Lightroom or some other piece of software for simple processing, you will likely see a huge difference as well compared to everything straight out of the camera. Not sure if you're already doing that or not.

Still learning. I realize shooting a black dog on snow is probably the hardest setting too.
I've not completely switched over to RAW shooting. Mostly jpg and just use FastStone for editing. Free. Quick and easy. Has curves, levels, does RAW etc, etc. But I still haven't made the pro leap to full RAW shooting and a proper editing program like LR or PS.

[Wakalimasu]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


Still learning. I realize shooting a black dog on snow is probably the hardest setting too.
I've not completely switched over to RAW shooting. Mostly jpg and just use FastStone for editing. Free. Quick and easy. Has curves, levels, does RAW etc, etc. But I still haven't made the pro leap to full RAW shooting and a proper editing program like LR or PS.

RAW's awesome!:D. I used to think that you can just use the jpg and it should be ok. You lose so much info by discarding the RAW data. Also Photoshop is like $10/month. You already spent all that money, why not bring the best out of what you shoot :)

[RealJimmyJames]

Does GIMP have the high-end editing ability like PS and LR? I have used it previously and liked it, but that was for much more simple tasks.

[killramos]

From what i remember gimp is about a technically capable as PS. Its just a huge PIA to use.

I have used it from time to time for minor image manipulation type stuff that goes beyond what aperture or something like MS paint could do in combination.

I have always found the system extremely unfriendly to use.

[msommers]

Sounds like your problem is sorted which is really great to hear!

I think your idea of buying glass first and upgrading the body later was the right choice. If you're using sub-par glass, you'll always have sub-par results, but not the other way around. In fact, using FX glass on a DX body will usually lend more leniency in terms of the lens' limitations because it won't use the whole image circle, whereas FX it will.

Keep your eye out for sales or even consider the used market for a new body. If hockey and shooting birds/your dog is what you think you'll be doing most, a new body such as a 70D will make the most sense now that you have a 70-200 2.8, a workhorse lens for a lot of pros.

With respect to processing software, I'd recommend Lightroom. Give it a free trial run for 30 days and see what you think. It's easy to organize files and considerably more intuitive than Photoshop (or most editing software out there IMO).

A couple other things.

1) When creeping into the higher ISOs like 2500+ (especially on DX cameras), getting the ISO dialed in correctly in camera will produce better shots than using a lower ISO that has been boosted considerably in processing.

2) For the AF system to have the least amount of work to do in servo/continuous, stick to a single-point, center position, if possible. Understand that your technique may need improvement here. You'll need to experiment what AF modes (single vs. 9-point etc) will, at the moment, produce the best results for you on a personal basis.

[C_Dave45]

Okay, so I got to try out the 70-200 2.8L on Sunday for some hockey shots. And again, I'm not impressed.

Don't know if it's the limitations of the body (T4i) or something wrong with the lens. At 70 mm, the focus won't lock onto anything further than 20 feet. As soon as I zoom into around 100mm, then it works fine. Most of the shots I'm fully zoomed in, so that really wasn't an issue.

Anyways, here they are. To me they're crap. Compared to shots like these (https://dynamicphotography.smugmug.com/Hockey-Pictures/AJHL-2015-2016-Season/Okotoks-Oilers-vs-CalgaryCanuc/i-bHCXg7f/A). I realize those were taken with $10,000+ gear. Is that the difference?

Some were RAW others were jpg in the camera.
Please critique.



Settings: Manual mode, 1/1000 or 1/1250, 2.8 and ISO at "auto" (usually around 1600 or 3200).
AI SERVO focus mode with centre point focusing.


http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Hockey%20Shots%2070%20200%2028L%20IS/IMG_6200_zpsyh73evpw.jpg



http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Hockey%20Shots%2070%20200%2028L%20IS/IMG_6305_zpsk5cv2av4.jpg



http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Hockey%20Shots%2070%20200%2028L%20IS/IMG_6181_zpsmj0v8msc.jpg



http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Hockey%20Shots%2070%20200%2028L%20IS/IMG_6271_zps2ia4v8jg.jpg



http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Hockey%20Shots%2070%20200%2028L%20IS/IMG_6494_zpsid70mn1o.jpg

[msommers]

What is making them crappy in your eyes? The noise?

If so, that is strictly a limitation of that camera and if you want improvements you're going to have to purchase a newer body.

Regarding the focusing, how close are you to the players? All lenses have a minimum focusing distance and will not work if the subject is closer than that specified distance.

[C_Dave45]

Yeah, the noise. Focus seems a little soft. Just no "pop".

Ice level shots are taken through the plexiglass (up tight against the glass) and I'm about 30-50 away. The higher up shots are over the glass from around 6 rows up. 50-70 (?) feet.

[98type_r]

Does it make a difference if you toggle the focus distance switch on the lens? I can't say I've ever encountered the problem, but I'ma different flavor of the lens on a 6D.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by 98type_r
Does it make a difference if you toggle the focus distance switch on the lens? I can't say I've ever encountered the problem, but I'ma different flavor of the lens on a 6D.
I didn't notice any difference unless I was trying to focus on something that was less than 10 feet away.

Yeah
I've been thinking of jumping to a full frame. Either that or the 7D for the faster drive.

[Wakalimasu]

photoshop does a lot to the photograph too

[Projek01]

I too had a 650D not too long ago. Here are my experiences

650D->7DMK1
Auto focus is a night and day difference. I had wayyy less blurry photos when shooting moving images. Camera locked on focus much better even with the same lens. Noise improved but was still noticeably present when used indoors without a flash (F4 lens).

7DMK1->6D
Holy crap noise is basically gone unless you are using a stupid high ISO. Dam i miss the autofocus of the 7D when shooting fast objects. Also the SD slot/processor is no where as fast doing bust shots compared to the CF slot of the 7D.

SD card technology has probably caught up now but I regret not getting a 5D instead sometimes.

[muse017]

Your pics look pretty good tho I'd suggest to learn some photoshop skills.
Shooting raw + white balance + unsharp mask

BTW If you are interested in 5d mark II, Let me know~!

[benyl]

I think that part of the issue with respect to "Pop" is the venue. You are shooting in a place with light that isn't flattering and through plexiglass.

The other thing is you are shooting manual mode with Auto ISO. There's no point. I would suggest that you shoot AV, set the aperture you like and set a minimum shutter speed with Auto ISO. Let the camera do the thinking while you choose the depth of field.

When shooting with snow / ice, you could probably do well to bump EV to +2/3 - +1 or a little more. Play with it. You can fix it later if you shoot raw, but why not get it right to begin with.

5D MK IIs have come down in price and are a great camera. rage2 still uses his for car shows, etc. 5D MK IIIs are also dropping and will drop more when the MK IV comes out (if ever).

I find it funny the Nikon guy is the most helpful in this thread with the Canon equipment. haha

Lightroom 6 has amazing noise reduction compared to 5. Worth the upgrade.


That photo you linked on smug mug is definitely shot through a hole in the glass.

[msommers]

Benyl provided great suggestions. To add on top of that, a couple things about settings:

1) I see you're changing aperture, ranging from f/2.8 - f/3.2 - f/4. Stick to f/2.8.

2) Shutter speed - 1/1000 or 1/1250 should be ok, but see below for reference.

3) Auto ISO - adjust EV + however much is needed. Try it before the game starts.

4) If that lens has image stabilization, turn it off.

Also I just saw that link you provided. Here's the information tied to that photo:


CAMERA Nikon NIKON D4
LENS AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 200-400mm f/4G IF-ED II
ISO 5000
FOCAL LENGTH 300.0 mm (300.0 mm in 35mm)
APERTURE f/4
EXPOSURE TIME 0.0025s (1/400)
NAME DSC_2170.JPG
SIZE 1600 x 1065
FILE SIZE 815.78 KB
DATE TAKEN 2015-09-05 20:07:58
DATE MODIFIED 2015-09-06 09:46:55
COPYRIGHT DYNAMIC-PHOTOGRAPHY

He's shooting at 5000 ISO, with a D4. This was Nikon's flagship pro camera a few years ago. There is zero comparison between your camera and one that originally cost over $7,000. Sorry that came off more prickish than intended, my bad.

I'm a quite surprised with the shutter speed used here but it could be something worthwhile experimenting with if you can get away with a slower shutter speed without things being blurry because that would casue your ISO to come down.

[SilverKast]

Hockey will come down to your equipment in a lot of cases. I had the same problems you are experiencing when I first started taking pictures at my kids games. I ended up constantly upgrading my gear to the point where I'm using the same stuff pros use - which gets really expensive as my wife likes to remind me.

Indoor arenas for hockey and lacrosse I usually end up around the following:

- Manual mode, RAW
- F2.8 with either a 70-200 or 300mm
- 1/800 usually works
- ISO will be 3200 if it's really good lighting, but can go up to 8000 and still get nice shots
- Can use a custom WB off the ice if needed, although recently I just use auto WB and adjust in Lightroom if I need to
- I try to avoid shooting through the glass where I can, although this will depend on the level of the sport and whether they'll allow you to or not (and if you don't mind the occasional lacrosse ball near your head, lol)

Half of what you'll end up with is your equipment. I originally started years back with a Sony Alpha 100 and couldn't understand why I couldn't replicate the type of photos I liked either. Now I'm using a D4s and it makes a world of difference.

Your photos look like they do a great job of capturing the action, maybe try renting a different body just to see what sort of difference it makes and see if that gets you the result your after?

[blitz]

The last 3 posts cover everything you need to know.

The only thing I want to add is that I think a full frame camera isn't going to offer much to you. You've mentioned your almost always zoomed in with your 70-200mm, if you loose the 1.5x crop factor you'd need a 300mm 2.8 lens to get the equivalent FOV. You need good ISO performance and Fast AF, which points you to the 7D line.

[C_Dave45]

Thanks to all for the advice and suggestions.
MSOMMERS, no you didn't come off as prickish LOL....I checked out his gear and was comforted to see what he was using. If a lot of the success comes down to hardware then at least I know it's not ALL my lack of skills/knowledge.
Most of his shots he's shooting from a spot between players benches where's no glass at the Okotoks arena. Max Bell has no areas without glass, unless I stand on the boards hanging over top of the glass...right in everyone's view. I'll just have to adapt.

Thanks for the advice re full frame vs something like the 7d. I've been eyeing that one for awhile.

Also I'm going to step up to Light room and learn that.

I really appreciate all the knowledge from the pros here. Thank you.

[msommers]

If indoor sports is something you think you'll enjoy and want high quality results, I hate to say but things are going to get expensive for you :D

That said I think stepping up to this will give you a lot of use for a long time. If you need more reach, you can address that later.

http://www.thecamerastore.com/7458-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II-Body.aspx

Samples like this may be of use:

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00cvok

https://www.flickr.com/groups/2378139@N23/


Direct samples:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/129510842@N04/23962618483/in/pool-7dmarkiidslr/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/129510842@N04/24221659509/in/pool-7dmarkiidslr/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114673564@N04/24563001945/in/pool-7dmarkiidslr/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/monthong/24351378711/in/pool-7dmarkiidslr/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/114673564@N04/24330869382/in/pool-7dmarkiidslr/

[LongCity]

Originally posted by msommers

4) If that lens has image stabilization, turn it off.
.

Wouldn't he want that on if he's shooting at the long/(er) end?

[msommers]

It depends entirely on the shutter speed used. Using the shutter speeds I suggested, I personally would turn it off to negate any issues with the lens' vibration motor.

In my experience when shooting high FPS scenes using a high shutter speed with VR on, it has a tendency to 'stick' and doesn't focus as well.

[Go4Long]

Is no one else picking up on the fact that he's using AI-Servo Focus? Or is Canon's focus naming not the same as Nikons? **EDIT** Nevermind...Canon's is different.

That being said...shooting indoor hockey is, as others have said, largely going to come down to gear. Even a pro level arena isn't really all that conducive to getting great shots with entry level gear.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by msommers

With respect to processing software, I'd recommend Lightroom. Give it a free trial run for 30 days and see what you think. It's easy to organize files and considerably more intuitive than Photoshop (or most editing software out there IMO).


Okay, I'm getting a trial of LR this morning. Seems as if everything is going to cloud based. Should I not bother with an older version of LR that's not cloud based?

I went to the Adobe LR site, and I couldn't even find a trial of an older version...just the CC version. While $9.99/month is certainly not expensive...it's the fact that today, we seem to be getting inundated with "$9.99 per months". Before I know it, I have about a hundred "9.99/month" accounts.

Or is it plain just worth it having LR in cloud?

[taemo]

Free trial of Lightroom
https://creative.adobe.com/products/download/lightroom?promoid=2XBSC5JS&mv=other

havent shot much sport but have you also tried under-exposing your shots by 1 stop and then recover it in post?

like what everyone has said already, set your aperture to the largest number, 2.8 in your case, shutter speed over 1/750s and the lowest ISO you can.

what I did in the past was take test shots to get the right exposure and then set the camera in manual mode as chances of exposure to change in an indoor event minimal.

here's a shot I took years ago on a 5DII w/ TC1.4x and 135mm f2L
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8098/8470106730_a86ddd4c00.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/dUtvCW)IMG_5217 (https://flic.kr/p/dUtvCW) by Earl Dieta (https://www.flickr.com/photos/itaemo/), on Flickr

EXIF info
Canon EOS 5D Mark II
EF135mm f/2L USM
ƒ/2.0
135.0 mm
1/500
ISO 400

[taemo]

one more thing that may help you with your sport photography Dave is a technique called back-focusing button
lots of wildlife and sports photographer uses it

but basically you configure one of the buttons on the back for focusing, leaving the shutter button only to take the shot; focus with your thumb and shoot with index finger.
this will help you on getting the shot at the right moment, minimizing the delay of the shutter button to focus and take the shot.
takes a couple of shots to get used to it but then it becomes second nature.
18Ib1mhvjOA

[msommers]

Dave, it's funny this thread got bumped as I was scrolling through Facebook today and saw a few Canon bodies for sale in this group that may be of interest:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/186164031442129/

I've bought and sold stuff through there and it's been a nice small community. There is a 7D with grip for $750obo. Not idea if that's a good deal but used might be a good way to go.

Yes for the most part Adobe is all cloud-based now unless you can get disc.

I was able to get a download of LR6, which is not cloud based and I still get updates. Scroll all the way to the bottom of this page and should be $150USD

http://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

Or Torrent if they're available though I honestly haven't checked.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by taemo
one more thing that may help you with your sport photography Dave is a technique called back-focusing button
lots of wildlife and sports photographer uses it

but basically you configure one of the buttons on the back for focusing, leaving the shutter button only to take the shot; focus with your thumb and shoot with index finger.
this will help you on getting the shot at the right moment, minimizing the delay of the shutter button to focus and take the shot.
takes a couple of shots to get used to it but then it becomes second nature.

Yeah I did look into that. But would the back-button be needed if I'm in the AI SERVO mode? Or do I hold that button down as I'm shooting?

btw, I just installed LR trial and started playing with it. Wow...certainly can do a lot more editing with it than what I was used to. But holy cow...big learning curve ahead of me now. Got some Youtubin' to do.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by msommers
Dave, it's funny this thread got bumped as I was scrolling through Facebook today and saw a few Canon bodies for sale in this group that may be of interest:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/186164031442129/

I've bought and sold stuff through there and it's been a nice small community. There is a 7D with grip for $750obo. Not idea if that's a good deal but used might be a good way to go.

Yes for the most part Adobe is all cloud-based now unless you can get disc.

I was able to get a download of LR6, which is not cloud based and I still get updates. Scroll all the way to the bottom of this page and should be $150USD

http://www.adobe.com/ca/products/photoshop-lightroom.html

Or Torrent if they're available though I honestly haven't checked.

Haha...you might see my posts and pm's to those bodies. I've got about 5 bodies I'm watching. Put a couple offers on. I even posted up an ISO 7D ad.

I do see the benefit of cloud-based. I just hate being "monthly'd" to death lol.

[msommers]

Yeah I hear ya. But with all the updates and such I've probably spent more than the $10/month lol.

The money these guys are making off it is pretty crazy. As a student I get deals again and for the entire creative suite, it costs me $14/yr lol.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by msommers
Yeah I hear ya. But with all the updates and such I've probably spent more than the $10/month lol.

The money these guys are making off it is pretty crazy. As a student I get deals again and for the entire creative suite, it costs me $14/yr lol.
*GASP* :eek: My son is a U of C student!! :devil:

[Mitsu3000gt]

Just a word of caution if you have your sights set on the 7D, don't set your expectations overly high. It's a ~7 year old camera body and it performs like one. The AF is only sensitive down to -0.5 EV which is quite weak and no better than The T4i (most modern bodies are sensitive to -2.0, -3.0, or -4.0 EV). RAW buffer is around 16 frames which is a good improvement if you don't need to shoot for more than ~2 seconds at a time. It shoots at 8FPS but only with several caveats (eg. AI Servo (the one you want) will slow it down, battery can't be low, and you need good lighting regardless of shutter speed). It will be an improvement over your T4i but don't set your expectations too high. I'm not trying to be negative or shit on the camera, I'd just hate for you to dump more money into a ~7 year old mid-level body and have further disappointments. The type of photography you're doing is more gear dependent than most.

Looking at ebay.ca completed listings, a 7D sold yesterday with a 50mm lens and a grip for $548 CAD. A few others sold closer to $650-750. Personally I don't think it's worth that but there isn't much else to choose from in between, given that the 7D Mark II came out so long afterward.

I strongly suggest you try one out before you buy one and be 100000% sure that it will make the difference you're looking for. My feeling is that you will find it a bit better, but not way better.

For editing, you can get a trial of pretty much every software. Try out Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop (Adobe Camera RAW), etc. and see what you prefer. Very basic adjustments (Exposure/levels, WB, black point, crops, etc.) will make enormous differences to your image output compared to straight out of the camera. I don't know if they still do this but if you know anyone who is a teacher or student you can buy Photoshop for dirt cheap, and you won't get future updates (not a huge deal as long as it supports your current camera) and there is no monthly fee. I know you can get the monthly fee Cloud ones cheaper if you know a student/teacher too.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Just a word of caution if you have your sights set on the 7D, don't set your expectations overly high. It's a ~7 year old camera body and it performs like one. The AF is only sensitive down to -0.5 EV which is quite weak and no better than The T4i (most modern bodies are sensitive to -2.0, -3.0, or -4.0 EV). RAW buffer is around 16 frames which is a good improvement if you don't need to shoot for more than ~2 seconds at a time. It shoots at 8FPS but only with several caveats (eg. AI Servo (the one you want) will slow it down, battery can't be low, and you need good lighting regardless of shutter speed). It will be an improvement over your T4i but don't set your expectations too high. I'm not trying to be negative or shit on the camera, I'd just hate for you to dump more money into a ~7 year old mid-level body and have further disappointments. The type of photography you're doing is more gear dependent than most.

Looking at ebay.ca completed listings, a 7D sold yesterday with a 50mm lens and a grip for $548 CAD. A few others sold closer to $650-750. Personally I don't think it's worth that but there isn't much else to choose from in between, given that the 7D Mark II came out so long afterward.

I strongly suggest you try one out before you buy one and be 100000% sure that it will make the difference you're looking for. My feeling is that you will find it a bit better, but not way better.

For editing, you can get a trial of pretty much every software. Try out Lightroom, Capture One, Photoshop (Adobe Camera RAW), etc. and see what you prefer. Very basic adjustments (Exposure/levels, WB, black point, crops, etc.) will make enormous differences to your image output compared to straight out of the camera. I don't know if they still do this but if you know anyone who is a teacher or student you can buy Photoshop for dirt cheap, and you won't get future updates (not a huge deal as long as it supports your current camera) and there is no monthly fee. I know you can get the monthly fee Cloud ones cheaper if you know a student/teacher too.

You raise some good points. I should try a 7D before I buy. Reading standard reviews, they make it sound like it will be a huge difference from my T4i.

I've never published a picture without some editing to it. But currently I'm using "Faststone":

I usually adjust curves, highlights and shadows, unsharp mask, etc.


Supports all major graphic formats (BMP, JPEG, JPEG 2000, animated GIF, PNG, PCX, TIFF, WMF, ICO and TGA), with a focus on popular digital camera RAW formats.
Displays Exchangeable image file format (Exif) camera information
Thumbnail cache and database
Basic image editing tools: resizing, cropping, color correction, red-eye removal
Advance image editing tools: clone brush, curve (tonality), levels and unsharp mask.
Lossless JPEG rotations
Side-by-side image comparison tool
Memory card image retriever
Slide show, including music and many transition effects


My latest published "work" lol: http://www.ajhl.ca/media/files/upload/IMG_6143small.JPG
(I know...easy shot)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by C_Dave45


You raise some good points. I should try a 7D before I buy. Reading standard reviews, they make it sound like it will be a huge difference from my T4i.


Just keep in mind the reviews you are reading are probably from ~2009 and the bar was a lot lower. It was a good camera in it's day but it's still going to struggle in difficult shooting situations and limitations will arise a lot sooner than a modern body. Again, just make sure you try before you buy, and make sure you try it in the most challenging conditions you plan to be shooting in - not just outside of a store or whatever.

[The_Penguin]

If you even remotely think you'll ever want to shoot video, consider the 70D.
I had a D30 then a 10D then the 40D and I was waiting, waiting, w a i t i n g for the 7D II, and finally gave up and got the 70D.
Of course shortly after the 7D II came out. I don't regret getting the 70D at all.

I shoot mainly wildlife, and the 7D II might have an edge there, but I thing the 70D will do me well for the next few years.
I don't shoot a lot of video, but with a couple of new grandchildren, I do shoot some, and it rocks for video!

Also on the 24-105, a lot of people crap on the lens for it being a "kit" lens, but it's pretty good for the money. Best L Zoom? Nope, but still worthy of the L designation in my opinion.

[C_Dave45]

Thanks for the advice on Lightroom. I spent all morning watching YouTube videos on how to use it. NOW I really see the advantage of shooting RAW. Wow. Love it!!



Originally posted by taemo
one more thing that may help you with your sport photography Dave is a technique called back-focusing button
lots of wildlife and sports photographer uses it


I did some shooting at last night's game and used the back focus method. I like it!! I change it around, but I really like it when I know what I want to shoot...close up of the goalie during a flury and or a goal. I focus on the goalie and then can just shoot and not have to worry about re-focusing the shot.

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/CalgaryDave/Calgary%20Canucks/IMG_6732small_zpscokkmysr.jpg

[taemo]

nice! glad that it's working out well for you.
that's the main advantage of the back focusing button (BFB), if you know what to shoot and how to anticipate the shot, pre-focus your lens and fire when ready.
no chance of the camera hunting focus all of a sudden potentially missing your shot.

BFB will work in AI-Focus or Servo as well

[D'z Nutz]

I use the back button focus too. It's actually the first thing I set up whenever I get a new DSLR. I always have to "relearn' how to use AF whenever I'm using someone else's DSLR that isn't set up for it cause I've been using it for so long.

[msommers]

+1 on that. It's natural now to focus that way but it felt awkward at the beginning. It's more stable as I can really smush the camera against my face lol.

[Strider]

That's already looking much better Dave.



+1 on back button focus

Biggest problem is when someone else grabs your camera to take a few shots for you.

[C_Dave45]

Originally posted by Strider
That's already looking much better Dave.



+1 on back button focus

Biggest problem is when someone else grabs your camera to take a few shots for you.

Thanks! lol...gave the wife my camera to take some shots at the birthday part, I had to spend a few minutes to change all the settings back to fully auto for her!


K...back to Lightroom. So I registered with my name, email, etc and grabbed the trial version. I'm so impressed that I'm going to purchase the full version. Or, I should say, my SON, who's a student at U of C is going to buy it and let his old man use it...Should I just ignore my registration details and start fresh with all his info? email, full name etc? I'll be putting it on my credit card, will that raise a flag as far as they're concerned?

BTW I freaking love this program. Had no idea the control you have using RAW files. I want to get a T-shirt saying "I shoot RAW"!! lol. (kidding)