Maxing out the Canon 1dx

KIPAX

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
21,426
Name
KIPAX Lancashire UK
Edit My Images
No
Picture posted not for critique as I was forced to shoot standing and its not the best pic anyway. This is a real usage rather than a setup shot showing the high iso :)

I was asked to shoot school football in whats called a soccerdome.. other places call them goal ? Its a series of small artificial indoor pitches. The lighting is terrible... The last time I went with a canon 1dmkIV I gave up and used flash.. seriously thats how dull it is..

If you go for a correct exposure your going to be shooting the subject you see.. which is a poorly lit dull figure.. so i over exposed slightly.. I usualy do when using high ISO anyway

I really didn't want to go below 500 shutter speed as this is fast action sport.. I used a 135mm prime as the 70-200 wasnt going to be any use even at f2.8.. so a 135mm f2 prime which in itself was a little short.. the picture below was taken in landscape and cropped to portrait so wasnt even filling the screen..

So f2 was set.. shutter at 500 and that made 51200 for ISO.. Without going into software H mode..thats the max ISO...Picture (shot in JPG) using dust scratches in PS and resize and sharpen.. plus 100% crop nothing done

max.jpg

max2.jpg
 
Whilst it's not quite suitable for a full page in a "glossy mag", Tony, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate for regular newspaper print quality.

Bob
 
Canon Bob said:
Whilst it's not quite suitable for a full page in a "glossy mag", Tony, I'm sure it'll be more than adequate for regular newspaper print quality.

Bob
Click to expand...

Exactly...They wanted pictures.. so thats what they get... will also be for sale on my website as 7x5s although not many as my keeper rate was stupidly low ..
 
Good stuff Tony. Couldn't you do that with Ektachrome pushed a bit? :D

What was the problem with failure rate? Particularly interested in AF performance, presumably that was servo mode, how did it handle those lads running straight at you in such poor light?

And what was the type of light source?

Tar.
 
HoppyUK said:
What was the problem with failure rate? Particularly interested in AF performance, presumably that was servo mode, how did it handle those lads running straight at you in such poor light?
.
Click to expand...

I have no idea of any techie terms for the light source.. I didnt do any white balance.. so no idea what they use in these places..

The 135mm f2 lens.. normally fantastic focus.. so i ahve no idea why but it was hunting a lot.. camera or lens?

when the light is good the camera hits everything every time if your doing a burst .. when the light is low it it misses now and then.. bit like the mkIV would in daylight..

this wasnt a controlled experiment.. it was a job.. I really didnt think about much other than trying to get the shot :)
 
daugirdas said:
you could shoot raw
Click to expand...

I never shoot RAW because of the amount of shots I take in a week.. thousands.. the difference in prints would be nominal

PS .. as mentioned i over exposed so the pictures are brighter than the actual subjects..it was very dim.. it had to be for those settings:)

PS I could never get to grips with lightroom... photoshop only
 
Last edited:
PS My keeper rate also suffered with high iso on shots not filling the frame.. 135mm was too short for most shots I probably shouldnt have even attempted.. but not knowing how it would perform at max iso i had to take them to find out....
 
KIPAX said:
I have no idea of any techie terms for the light source.. I didnt do any white balance.. so no idea what they use in these places..

The 135mm f2 lens.. normally fantastic focus.. so i ahve no idea why but it was hunting a lot.. camera or lens?

when the light is good the camera hits everything every time if your doing a burst .. when the light is low it it misses now and then.. bit like the mkIV would in daylight..

this wasnt a controlled experiment.. it was a job.. I really didnt think about much other than trying to get the shot :)
Click to expand...

Cheers Tony, thanks.

Maybe a question mark over the lens, it being a relatively old design. I'm just wondering what it takes to trip up the 1DX's AF ;)

I'm guessing the light was some kind of fluorescent, whatever it is they use in those sports halls (big round things?) but suspect it may not be possible to get really accurate colour from them.
 
HoppyUK said:
what it takes to trip up the 1DX's AF ;)
.
Click to expand...

the failing to hit every frame with a burst when using higher iso (lower light) is the same for all my lens.. the newest being the 70-200 mkII not tried on static.. but certainly on moving..
 
I shot a party in a similar soccer dome a few weeks ago for a friend. I know what you
mean about and horrible white balance but I ended up at 1/600 F1.8 ISO1600 with my 40D and 85/1.8. I guess my lighting wasn't as bad as yours but luckily the 40D tracked ok (considering I had my 3 year old on my knee at the same time!)

Cheers
Steve
 
KIPAX said:
PS My keeper rate also suffered with high iso on shots not filling the frame.. 135mm was too short for most shots I probably shouldnt have even attempted.. but not knowing how it would perform at max iso i had to take them to find out....
Click to expand...
You should get one of those older 200mm f/1.8 primes mate, talk about heaven.
 
Gary Coyle said:
You should get one of those older 200mm f/1.8 primes mate, talk about heaven.
Click to expand...

thats the problem with FF .. expensive lens replacement.. I now have an excelelnt wide andgle in my 35mm but the 50mm needs replacing ...the 135 would be better with the 200 as you say..but i cant afford boo hoo :(

you mentioned earleir being able to crop in more wiht the FF .. yes but then what am I gaining? i might as well use the mkIV ...
 
Not sure if you've seen my thread about high ISO Tony and trying to make a 25600 shoot look like a 1600 shot?

Whilst I was successful IMO, it does take about 10mins per shot and you really have to shoot RAW. You can't really maintain detail and smooth out the noise at the same time at this high ISO without taking time in PS which obviously, would make it a bit of a pointless exercise financially for you.

With that in mind I don't think it's too bad at all - you were well equipped and did the best you (and many others) could do.
 
KIPAX said:
I never shoot RAW because of the amount of shots I take in a week.. thousands.. the difference in prints would be nominal

PS .. as mentioned i over exposed so the pictures are brighter than the actual subjects..it was very dim.. it had to be for those settings:)

PS I could never get to grips with lightroom... photoshop only
Click to expand...

While I really do appreciate your reasons for not using raw, I see it as another tool you can use when you really are up against the wall and shooting at the limit.

Obviously for all the shots you take, no chance. But maybe consider it when it may make an appreciable difference. Horrid/low lighting where a small tweak to the white balance could make all the difference..?

Just thinking out loud. Still a very usable shot for media!
 
Just to be clear I have absoloutly nothing against using RAW and have/will if/when I need to.. I am against the policy to shoot wrongly and fix later as regularly advised in TP forums..esp for WB

I am not an expert in using NR and believe I can get equal results with the methods I use in normal circumstances.. however this was a way out there job... few and far between.. didnt know what the results where going to be... Yes RAW and nr would be better for this... in hindsight :)
 
KIPAX said:
Just to be clear I have absoloutly nothing against using RAW and have/will if/when I need to.. I am against the policy to shoot wrongly and fix later as regularly advised in TP forums..esp for WB

I am not an expert in using NR and believe I can get equal results with the methods I use in normal circumstances.. however this was a way out there job... few and far between.. didnt know what the results where going to be... Yes RAW and nr would be better for this... in hindsight :)
Click to expand...

The RAW file won't benefit you really unless you want to edit individually. At this ISO your RAW file will only give you about a stop of DR and whilst can be useful, and pullbacks will result in a substantial amount of noise added.
I'd just apply a moderate NR in lightroom, like I said - to clean this up properly you're looking at individual shots which will take a while.
 
KIPAX said:
I am against the policy to shoot wrongly and fix later as regularly advised in TP forums..esp for WB
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting shoot wrongly - but even when you set your camera to the correct white balance, you can still find there is a colour cast because indoor light sources vary. Tweak white balance after the shot, not set it wrong and fix in post.

I guess the alternative is either take a custom white balance, or live with the colour cast. In your situation I expect a custom white balance would sort it out as the lighting is not likely to vary much throughout the shoot.
 
KIPAX said:
thats the problem with FF .. expensive lens replacement.. I now have an excelelnt wide andgle in my 35mm but the 50mm needs replacing ...the 135 would be better with the 200 as you say..but i cant afford boo hoo :(

you mentioned earleir being able to crop in more wiht the FF .. yes but then what am I gaining? i might as well use the mkIV ...
Click to expand...
Not saying you were gaining anything as such but at least you could still have used the 35mm instead of the inferior 50mm
 
MWHCVT said:
Actually saw one of those for sale a few weeks back for 2k :eek:
Click to expand...
i had the pleasure of borrowing one for a night game tied to a 1D MKII, it was remarkable, deffo the best Canon lens i ever used, super quick AF, painfully shapr wide open and Bokeh to die for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top