1D MkIII & 1D MkIV Set Up

S

Sgt_Bilko99

Messages
533
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Apologies if this has been asked before, which camera would you use with a Canon 300mm (non IS) and which with a 70-200mm (non IS).
Your thoughts please and would it make any difference if shooting under floodlight.
 
Not sure I understand the question.

The 1D4 will give you more scope than the 1D3 for cropping with the shorter lens and the 1D4 will perform better at higher ISO.

I'd be inclined to decide which lens suits the shots you consider most important and stick the 1D4 on that.
 
Last edited:
Sorry Phil, I will try and clarify. I have just secured a 1D MkIV to go with my 1D MkIII. Obviously the MkIV is superior but which lens should I attach it to at football on a two camera set up.
 
I had this exact setup mate, since upgraded.
Lots of factors went into which body went on which lens.
First of all it depends how good your mk iii is ( mine was awful)
Second, are you confident the team shooting to you are the better team and likely to score?
Third, how dark is it?

Long story short, id advise but your best camera on your money shot. ie. On your 70-200.
More chance of missing a shot with the mk iii as the mk iv is miles better at picking up focus.
Obviously the other problem is , goal other end and your on the 300 with the mkiii is now light, then your going to struggle.

To try and battle this, i just assessed the match, and swap over bodies/lenses if needs be
 
Last edited:
If I am shooting just one team then the best camera goes on the 70-200 for goalmouth action and celebrations... If I am shooting both teams then the best camera goes on the long lens as that does most work..
 
^ This.

MKIV for the short lens as that's what gets the money shots (assuming you're at the right end).

As an aside, the 70-200 non IS is in my view a bit of a dog. I found mine slow to focus and the tracking rather poor. Upgrading to the new 70-200 IS mkII was a revelation and it's paid for itself many times over.
 
Tobers said:
As an aside, the 70-200 non IS is in my view a bit of a dog. I found mine slow to focus and the tracking rather poor. Upgrading to the new 70-200 IS mkII was a revelation and it's paid for itself many times over.
Click to expand...


I was so dissapointed with TWO canon 70-200 that it put me off zooms and i stuck to the 135 f2 prime which is a stunning lens i am keeping hold of.. but for goalmouth action you really need the zoom.. so i tried again with the 70-200 mkII and WOW! what an amazing difference... perfect lens :)
 
Thanks for the replies guys, I really appreciate the advice I have received on TP.

My 70-200mm is not bad at focus and tracking but haven't tried the IS version to see the difference.

I wouldn't even attempt to shoot the opposing goal mouth with the MkIII in anything but good light. I have two MkIII's (need to sell one) and both seem okay to me, one has had the AF mirror fix done by Canon the other is outside the effected range.

I think I will for my first attempt put the MkIV on the zoom and the MkIII on the prime, as I normally shoot for one team. Would this be best option under poor floodlights as well?
 
I did a match last night.. floodlights.. at low down league Chorley FC .. Because of the lighting and I only needed one team and it was for the paper.. I did the whole match with the 1dx and 70-200 gallery here

http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?album=FOOTBALL/3054

But check this out.. the full length of the pitch.. behind one goaline to the other with the full fram 1dx and 70-200 very usable

http://www.kipax.com/gallery/index.php?action=view&album=FOOTBALL/3054&image=7&


Tonight its another floodlight game Man City v Blackburn and again only interested in one team.. but probably use both cameras as lighting will be 100 times better than at chorley :)
 
Thanks Tony for showing what is possible, I think the answer is to try various options and see what works for me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top