Football at iso 6400

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,986
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
I am not happy wiht my canon mkIII because of its performance in good light (skin tones) and the calibration that seems to be all over the place at the moment.. I am sending it back at the end of the week..

However the pics that do make it are good.. and high iso is why i bought the mkIII this is where its worth every penny (if only calibration was bob on every shot)

these where taken at iso 6400, f2.8 and 400 shutter speed.. last night at curzon ashton not the brightest of ground..

Noise ninja standard at 6 ... theninto photoshop for dust/.scratches.. resize and sharp

this is why I want the mkIII Superb iso :)


#1 This taken from nearly the opposite side of the pitch and cropped in!

6400_1.jpg




#2 this taken closer but in landscape mode so half the pic cropped to make it portrait.


6400_2.jpg
 
These are the ones that made it (well 2 of em) and I am ultra massive impressed with them at iso 6400 and thats why i posted... If only it performed as well all the time.. but low light is why I bought it :)
 
Because of the many many pics that dont make it ... :( the calibration is all over and only around 4 in 20 are in focus... I ahve just had the magnets fixed on it and prior it was perfectly calibrated.. now even when calibrating myself it doesnt hold focus... settings same as always..

Plus its dissapoitning during bright sunlight.. all skintones are very strong pink..
 
Ah right, thanks for posting up about that because i was thinking of getting the MkIII soon :gulp:
 
Looks good, don't like the noise reduction stuff but i have never been a fan! I was trying to find a few D3 shots at 6400 but i usually limit my football stuff to 3200
 
Last edited:
Well worth trying wasn't it :)........sorry to hear you are having problems with your MKIII though.
 
To be fair they really don't look too different for mine, espicially at 3200. I had a quick go with a fellow togs MKIII and the focusing wasn't too bad but he moans about it also. He used my D3 with 300 f2.8 and was really impressed, particularly with the player tracking focusing which i find to be superb.


Heres my 6400, actually taken as someone was inquiring about the noise, also just realised its a MkIII in the picture!

Nikon D3, 6400 ISO, 100% crop. Low in camera noise reduction, NO pp. noise reduction or sharpening

WEBCROP.jpg


Sorry the picture is massive, if its too big feel free to remove mods, i just thought it showed the noise pretty well
 
Sorry to hear youre having trouble KIPAX, the low light stuff loods really good, are you saying you dont have any AF problems shooting in low light.

Ive just picked up a MK3 but wont get to shoot it till the weekend, quickly fired off a few shots in the back garden and it seeks OK although i was only shooting static objects.

You wouldnt consider saving your night time settings to a CSD file and emailing it to me would you, ill recopricate with my daytime settings if they come out all right.
 
you need an iso 6400 shot under flloodlights at night to compare... noise shot in daylight looks a lot less noisy :)
 
Gary Coyle said:
Sorry to hear youre having trouble KIPAX, the low light stuff loods really good, are you saying you dont have any AF problems shooting in low light.

Ive just picked up a MK3 but wont get to shoot it till the weekend, quickly fired off a few shots in the back garden and it seeks OK although i was only shooting static objects.

You wouldnt consider saving your night time settings to a CSD file and emailing it to me would you, ill recopricate with my daytime settings if they come out all right.
Click to expand...



its not the AF I dont think.. its the calibration i think...
gonna send to canon... at least when it comes back i will know its set bob on and anything else is my fault..


no at night i stilll have the same problem of a lot of pics not looking right... i posted two that do look right at iso 6400 to show the GOOD of the mkIII
 
Next time i shoot the football ill get the 6400 out, i use it so rarely, always tend to find 3200 is enought, Espically until recently 1600 was an absolute maximum
 
Gary Coyle said:
are we talking simple lens to body calibration which can be done on the body itself or something more extreme.
Click to expand...


As said I did my own calibration and all was well... but since it went for repair on magnets now i get calibration right but it dont stay right.... lets say 20 pics ..4 in calibration the rest fuzzy
 
russbates said:
Next time i shoot the football ill get the 6400 out, i use it so rarely, always tend to find 3200 is enought, Espically until recently 1600 was an absolute maximum
Click to expand...

I am going to stick to 3200 unless extereme circumstances... :)
 
What was the magnet repair all about, ive not heard that one before, im gonna hang onto my mk2 for a while until i get some confidence in the mk3.
 
Re. the skin tone problem - is this in jpg and if so, what picture style are you using?

I can't say I've noticed any issues with skin but I'm shooting raw most of the time and when I do use jpg it's normally red faced runners so it's a little hard to judge.
 
skin tones is on a sunnny day... used standard and faithfull and both produce same nasty results on a sunny day

can you see in exif what style used?
 
I don't think the picture style shows up in the exif though I suppose the Canon s/w would reveal it.

Another thought, what WB setting are you using? I looked at a couple of the shots from the Sunday morning footy thread and the skin tones showed a bit too much blue but that could be because of the WB setting.
 
The last sunday game I did was cloudy so set the WB to cloudy.. It then made all the skins look autumm colours... thats the first time i used anyhting other than auto WB



The pink faces come about especially when its a bright sunny day and moreso on players with red kit.. thats how it seems
 
I think auto WB probably has a lot to do with it. The green of the grass and varying colours of kit, etc. will confuse the hell out of the auto WB. I tend to stick with daylight unless it's a really cold light then I'll switch to cloudy or take a custom reading.
 
pxl8 said:
I think auto WB probably has a lot to do with it. The green of the grass and varying colours of kit, etc. will confuse the hell out of the auto WB. .
Click to expand...

auto WB has always been somehting i could depend on.. however wiht the MKII i think your right... this collection on a sunny day http://www.soccerwomen.co.uk/c1595139.html and players in red caused all pink faces.. I PPd them but still not happy.. getting pink off faces also effects shirts... one team in red and the other claret has totally messed the colours for the skin tones :(



I ahve to say with complete embarresment (and mainly due to WB being so good previously) that I have never done my own WB :( dont know how :(
 
I have to admit, I don't have any problems with skin. I've shot in studio, daylight, and night (with canon flash). I've had studio pictures published in magazines ok. and the others in mags and newspapers.

I shot in RAW, I have WB on flash for flash, 5600 for studio, and daylight for daylight. Plus the ability to make adjustments if I need to. I limit adjustments most of the time as I need to get pictures out as fast as possible. I almost changed to a NIKON D3, the main thing that stopped me, was that no-one had the 24-70 in stock at the time. So I got the Canon, despite a few questions over focusing (which I've now established is better than my mk11n), I'm very happy with it. I'm waiting for the mk IV now.
 
natjag said:
I have to admit, I don't have any problems with skin. I've shot in studio, daylight, and night (with canon flash). I've had studio pictures published in magazines ok. and the others in mags and newspapers.

I shot in RAW, .
Click to expand...


Unfortunatly i cant always shoot raw because of time limitations after a game... the ones shown in example i could and it might be the answer... but i dont wanna shoot raw :( i shouldnt have to.. maybe setting my own wb
 
KIPAX said:
Unfortunatly i cant always shoot raw because of time limitations after a game... the ones shown in example i could and it might be the answer... but i dont wanna shoot raw :( i shouldnt have to.. maybe setting my own wb
Click to expand...

I understand that. When I've shot jpg (it was a football game, indoors at the O2), my skin tone was all over the place, as was everything else. That was on a mk11n. Before I got a mac running aperture, RAW wouldn't have been an easy option for me.
 
Trouble is.. could be months before the sun comes out again to test :)
 
Time for a holiday then ;)

Auto WB is a bit of a nightmare shooting stuff like this as it tends to produce a different result for every frame so sorting it in post takes forever. Sticking with a single WB at least means you can batch the files if they need it later.
 
Can someone explain what is meant by calibration? I know what calibrating kit means but how do you calibrate your own camera?
 
The latest Canon bodies have a user setting that will shift the focus point back/forwards a small amount to help solve problems where the body and lens are mismatched. I'm not sure if Nikon offer the same feature but I'm sure someone will be able to answer that.
 
great footy shots

i'm going to moto cross next week
will have to have a play :)
 
Did three night matches this week, mon tue wed and on wed at Bury I photographed FCUoM v Ilkeston .. I tried a few more iso 6400 and am getting more confident with it and the PP is a bit better.. not as plastic.

The more I use it the more I like it for extermely bad lighting situations


6400_3.jpg



6400_4.jpg



6400_5.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top