5DIII + 100-400 IS f/4.5-5.6 and 7DII + 70-200 IS II f/2.8 Shooting Scenario Question

[scottv69]

Hey guys, I am new to this site but not new to photography.


Last night I had an assignment to shoot a football (soccer) goalkeeper in action specifically focused on his use of a pair of gloves in stopping shots on goal. I used a 5D Mark III paired with the first version of the 100-400 IS lens as well as a 7D Mark II paired with the 70-200 IS II f/2.8 lens


I had both cameras set to RAW, AI-Servo, High Speed Shooting and in Manual mode. I set the shutter speed to 1/1250 and aperture to wide open for both lenses. i.e. f/5.6 on the 5DIII and f/2.8 (f/4.0 equivalent) on the 7DII. ISO was set to Auto with a max of 12,800 on the 5DIII and 6,400 on the 7DII.


So on the 5DIII I had a max reach of 400mm and max aperture of f/5.6 with a max ISO of 12,800.


On the 7DII I had an equivalent reach of 320mm and max aperture of f/4.0 with a max ISO of 6,400.


I got to the field a little early to take some test shots before the game started to make sure my exposure was OK. I was positioned on the sideline right at the corner post shooting across the field to the goalkeeper.


My first observation was that both cameras with these settings were underexposed based off the lighting provided. I also realised the 400mm on the 5DIII was enough reach to fill the frame with the goalkeeper, but the 320mm equivalent on the 7DII was not quite enough. Somewhere around 350-375mm would have been perfect.


I also realised the max ISO settings was not enough for either setup. Knowing the 5DIII would go higher cleaner I pushed it up to 25,600 but it still wasn't enough at f/5.6 for a correct exposure.


So I switched back to the 7DII and found 6,400 ISO was not enough at f/4.0 equivalent, so I pushed it up to 12,800 ISO. I didn't feel I could go any higher based off the sample shots I had seen online. I then took some test shots and found this still wasn't quite enough, but I decided to shoot anyway and hope I can rescue then in Lightroom.


I did drop the shutter speed on the 7D once I had taken some shots down to 1/1000 and took some more shots, then dropped it again to 1/800 but didn't want to go any lower than that as I didn't want motion blur.


So my question is, what should I have done differently?


With the combination of equipment I had, was there a better solution to my problem?


I am hoping to learn from this experience and maybe go back next Saturday night and have another crack at it, so please suggest what I can do differently.

[ricktas]

Please show us some of the photos. It will help with answers.

[ameerat42]

Definitely some pictures with the EXIF intact, Scott.
It sounds unexpected... Did you knock the shutter speed back down much further
than 1/1000sec on BOTH cameras and did it make any difference?

[scottv69]

Will post some RAW image files later when I get back to the PC in the office. And yes I dropped shutter speed but only down to 1/800 on the 7DII + 70-200 setup. And thanks for the replies.

[ameerat42]

Will post some RAW image files later...
You cannot upload raw files to AP, only jpegs, gifs, (and off the top of my head, pdfs).
Just save straight from raw to jpeg, re-size for here, and post that. Make sure you don't
drop the EXIF along the way.

[scottv69]

Ok understood. I think I read somewhere last night 1024px was max width. Is that right?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[scottv69]

Here some examples. These were taken from the camera as RAWs, imported into Lightroom. Then exported as JPGs with a large side of 1,024px and max size of 400kb. No other changes were made.

130124130125130126130127

[Warbler]

Frenchville Club? It's very dark and your 100-400 won't cut it there at night. Of course they don't want to play during the day when it's 35 degrees and stickier than a lollipop at daycare.

My EXIF reader is crashing on Chrome at the moment, so I can't see what exposure metering you used. Centre-Weighted, Matrix, or Spot? When the background is so dark, there is a tendency to overexpose the actual subjects. This is not evident in the first, but you're on the way towards it in the 2nd and 3rd. If you darken those up a little, say 1/3 stop, you'll find they look sharper too. The first one might be 1/3 stop underexposed.

For these conditions, you would need to spend some money on longer, faster glass to get results comparable to what you see on the back pages of the big newspapers. I try to keep my 7D2 to ISO8000 or less, and my 5D3 to ISO12800 or less. Then I take whatever shutter speed I can get with those limitations on f2.8 glass. You'll get blur in the extremities of the limbs, and elsewhere. You need to find a way to work with that, or shoot under better conditions. Shoot the keeper at training in the twilight if it's a set-up job. You can get closer then too by being on the training paddock with them. You can even go to the extreme of having people take practice penalties where the keeper (and you) already knows that the kick will low left or high right etc. Set up a remote flash if you want.

If you want to shoot a game however, you're stuck with the conditions and the gear you have already.

[scottv69]

Thanks for taking the time to respond with a detailed answer. Appreciated.

Yes this was at Frenchville on Saturday night. I used Evaluative metering and to be honest that was one thing I didn't even think about changing.

Agree with you on the max ISO for each body, but I pushed past these limits in this scenario because I had no choice. Also understand on the Aperture Priority mode and taking whatever shutter speed you can get.

I will probably shoot football again this Saturday night to see if I can crack this one, just not sure which field. Depends on the fixtures. Are any of the Rocky football fields better than Frenchville for night lighting?

[Warbler]

Are any of the Rocky football fields better than Frenchville for night lighting?

I don't think so. You could try Pilbeam Park. Nerimbera got a lot of money to repair their facilities after Cyclone Marcia wiped out the clubhouse. If you go down there, Ricky England is the club president. I'm sure he can give you some tips on photography in the conditions.

[scottv69]

I am pretty close to Southside United so could try Jardine Park. I did know Nerimbera got some money after the cyclone, so might try there too.

[Warbler]

I had a bit of a dig around for images I took down at Pilbeam Park not long after I bought the 5D3. Here's one taken after sunset in May, so reasonably dark. It was taken with the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 + Sigma 1.4xTC. This combo is not recommended as the Sigma TC is not great. I've since got hold of a Canon 1.4xTC Mk III, and it is much better.

420mm, F4, ISO25600, and not great. You want to be closer to the action. I was just testing the gear out.

[scottv69]

Yeah I'm thinking with the gear I have now it isn't going to work at night. The lighting just isn't good enough. I do like the idea of the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 though. But it won't be long enough and even f/2.8 isn't wide enough even at 25,600 ISO. Appreciate finding that shot.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Warbler]

This one is better.

- - - Updated - - -

Still you can see the motion blur at 1/750th, ISO12800.

[scottv69]

Nice. Was that with the 120-300 and TC?

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[Warbler]

Yes. Soft and noisy. Long sport lenses are very expensive if you want the best. Settling for less can be frustrating. A Canon EF400 F2,8 L IS USM is the gear we'd all like.

[scottv69]

Maybe I should give up on night sports!!!! LOL

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[scottv69]

I was just thinking.....A few years ago when CQ Energy football team was playing in Rocky I was in town and saw somebody shooting from the sidelines with a monopod and a big black Sigma lens. Maybe that was you.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk