Lots still to like in the 1DX - baseball with Sigma 150-600 C

garykohs · Jan 26, 2016

I'm a new 1DX user, having recently upgraded from the 1D4. I knew it would be better for basketball. Of course it is brilliant with the 135/2 L. But last weekend was my first try at baseball with my 1DX and my even newer Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I'm very happy with that combination.

This was a high school pre-season camp/tournament at Cougar Field at the University of Houston.

Turning the double play:

I missed the 2nd baseman snagging the ball. My fault, not the camera's. This is the throw from 2nd to short.

Next image - after the shortstop stepped on 2nd.

The shortstop's throw - there were a couple of images in between the above and this one, all equally good, at 12 fps.

Next image. It's really bang - bang at 12 fps.

Next image - bang, bang!

There was one in between the above and this one.

Next image is play at 1st. I should have done better but the camera/lens nailed it.

Here's what really amazed me. Shooting in bright daylight - 10:38 am in unfiltered sunlight in Houston, TX - there are lots of shadows to deal with. But using the highlight and shadow sliders on a raw/CR2 image I got images like this. No DR on Canon sensors? I also shoot Sony and this is the best I've seen!

Look at the catcher's face inside the helmet/mask. Not bad, right?

Not bad.

--
Gary

http://www.kleinoak.org/a700/mustang_a700.jpg

John_A_G · Jan 27, 2016

Of how much a lens matters for sports. The 1dx is a fine machine, but those shots are really degraded from what they could be by shooting at f/8. That pairing is a real head scratcher. I understand from your posting history you like to collect camera bodies. But, I think you'd get much better results if you paused your body collection long enough to save up for a more appropriate lens. The lens really does contribute more than the body in a lot of cases. In my opinion this is a great example of that point.

hotdog321 · Jan 27, 2016

Cool! I've shot at that field. I always have a horrible time capturing a double play and a 150 to 600 sounds real sweet for a day game.

garykohs · Jan 27, 2016

John_A_G said:
Of how much a lens matters for sports. The 1dx is a fine machine, but those shots are really degraded from what they could be by shooting at f/8. That pairing is a real head scratcher. I understand from your posting history you like to collect camera bodies. But, I think you'd get much better results if you paused your body collection long enough to save up for a more appropriate lens. The lens really does contribute more than the body in a lot of cases. In my opinion this is a great example of that point.

What would be a more appropriate lens? And what makes it a head scratcher.

I have usually used a Canon 100-400L lens for baseball, or a Sony 70-400G lens if shooting with my Sonys. Under the lights I usually shoot either a Sigma 120-300/2.8 HSM OS or a Canon 300/4 L.

The Sigma 150-600C, though, is giving me results that equal or better the 100-400L in these daylight shots.

garykohs · Jan 27, 2016

hotdog321 said:
Cool! I've shot at that field. I always have a horrible time capturing a double play and a 150 to 600 sounds real sweet for a day game.

thoth22 · Jan 27, 2016

Focus looks fine it's just when did contrast become a bad thing? The photos look kind of blah, too much middle, and the red from the field give a pink on the uniform, looking sort of ca-ish. Fine pics and everything, don't mean to be that guy just miss contrast.

ImageAmateur · Jan 28, 2016

garykohs said:
I'm a new 1DX user, having recently upgraded from the 1D4. I knew it would be better for basketball. Of course it is brilliant with the 135/2 L. But last weekend was my first try at baseball with my 1DX and my even newer Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I'm very happy with that combination.

This was a high school pre-season camp/tournament at Cougar Field at the University of Houston.

Turning the double play:

Here's what really amazed me. Shooting in bright daylight - 10:38 am in unfiltered sunlight in Houston, TX - there are lots of shadows to deal with. But using the highlight and shadow sliders on a raw/CR2 image I got images like this. No DR on Canon sensors? I also shoot Sony and this is the best I've seen!

Look at the catcher's face inside the helmet/mask. Not bad, right?

--
Gary

''But using the highlight and shadow sliders on a raw/CR2 image I got images like this. No DR on Canon sensors? I also shoot Sony and this is the best I've seen!''

I use Nikon currently, and even I get fed up sometimes with the rubbish spouted about Canon sensors, as if they were just one step away from the garbage tip.

Yes, at low ISO's the Sony sensors have an advantage and surely some improvement from Canon there would be good and desirable (which may be coming shortly, we will see).

But with the images I have seen from the 5DII on, it gets old hearing the rhetoric about how bad the sensors are (hence my reply here to agree with what you are saying).

Especially as above ISO 1600 or so, it is all irrelevant anyway, as Canon sensors match Sony/ Nikon from that point re DR.

Nice shots.

--
Wishing You Good Light.

John_A_G · Jan 28, 2016

garykohs said:
John_A_G said:

Of how much a lens matters for sports. The 1dx is a fine machine, but those shots are really degraded from what they could be by shooting at f/8. That pairing is a real head scratcher. I understand from your posting history you like to collect camera bodies. But, I think you'd get much better results if you paused your body collection long enough to save up for a more appropriate lens. The lens really does contribute more than the body in a lot of cases. In my opinion this is a great example of that point.

Click to expand...

What would be a more appropriate lens? And what makes it a head scratcher.

I have usually used a Canon 100-400L lens for baseball, or a Sony 70-400G lens if shooting with my Sonys. Under the lights I usually shoot either a Sigma 120-300/2.8 HSM OS or a Canon 300/4 L.

The Sigma 150-600C, though, is giving me results that equal or better the 100-400L in these daylight shots.

69chevy · Jan 28, 2016

John_A_G said:
Of how much a lens matters for sports. The 1dx is a fine machine, but those shots are really degraded from what they could be by shooting at f/8. That pairing is a real head scratcher. I understand from your posting history you like to collect camera bodies. But, I think you'd get much better results if you paused your body collection long enough to save up for a more appropriate lens. The lens really does contribute more than the body in a lot of cases. In my opinion this is a great example of that point.

What in the world are you babbling about?

This lens is great for sports.

F8 is a problem? How?

hotdog321 · Jan 28, 2016

garykohs said:
hotdog321 said:

Cool! I've shot at that field. I always have a horrible time capturing a double play and a 150 to 600 sounds real sweet for a day game.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

Click to expand...

Thanks. I'm really enjoying the 150-600C. The details are stunning in the middle of the range. It's a bit soft at or near 600mm.

--
Gary
http://www.kleinoak.org/a700/mustang_a700.jpg

I shoot at that field with a 300 f/2.8 + 1.4X and a 70-200, but I'm always pointing the camera in the wrong direction on double plays!

Baseball drives me crazy--especially pro baseball. I spend hours on a razor's edge just to miss the three seconds of action! Rant, rave. Pant, pant. Gotta go take meds now.

--
photojournalist
http://craighartley.zenfolio.com/

69chevy · Jan 28, 2016

John_A_G said:
garykohs said:

John_A_G said:

Of how much a lens matters for sports. The 1dx is a fine machine, but those shots are really degraded from what they could be by shooting at f/8. That pairing is a real head scratcher. I understand from your posting history you like to collect camera bodies. But, I think you'd get much better results if you paused your body collection long enough to save up for a more appropriate lens. The lens really does contribute more than the body in a lot of cases. In my opinion this is a great example of that point.

Click to expand...

What would be a more appropriate lens? And what makes it a head scratcher.

I have usually used a Canon 100-400L lens for baseball, or a Sony 70-400G lens if shooting with my Sonys. Under the lights I usually shoot either a Sigma 120-300/2.8 HSM OS or a Canon 300/4 L.

The Sigma 150-600C, though, is giving me results that equal or better the 100-400L in these daylight shots.

--
Gary
http://www.kleinoak.org/a700/mustang_a700.jpg

Click to expand...

Gary - the problem is f/8.0. 300 2.8 is a bit short for baseball especially on full frame. I'm not sure how well your sigma takes a TC.

I would agree the results you're getting are similar to 100-400 - but again, aperture / DOF is the problem with the photos. You need to get down to f/4 or f/2.8 - shallower DOF will allow your images to pop more.

Never mind, I now see you think the issue is DOF.

Aperture is but one piece of the three sided thing we call DOF.

Distance and focal length being the other two.

His perspective (too high) and composition (too loose) as well as shooting at shorter focal lengths from a distance are the reasons f8 doesn't "pop" here. Not the lens.

The 150-600C is a very good lens when you have enough light, and spending an extra $4K to get shallow DOF is the worst advice you could give.

Tweaking his technique is all he needs to get the look you want, which may or may not be the look he wants.

John_A_G · Jan 28, 2016

69chevy said:
Never mind, I now see you think the issue is DOF.

Aperture is but one piece of the three sided thing we call DOF.

Distance and focal length being the other two.

Yeah. And if you shoot baseball, your shooting positions are limited. So, trying to increase your distance and use a longer focal length isn't sensible. So, the only sensible way to decrease DOF is to increase aperture.

Sorry, but if your distance to subject is fixed because of where the action is (double play at 2nd base) and where you must shoot from, you need to increase aperture.

Again, it makes little sense to buy a 1dx to shoot sports and pair it with a f/5.6 lens. Just my opinion - better off with less expensive body and a better lens with wider aperture.

Here are a few examples - results are better because lens is better:

Sports Corner - Photography - FM Forums

Explore Sports Corner photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.

www.fredmiranda.com

Sports Corner - Photography - FM Forums

Explore Sports Corner photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.

www.fredmiranda.com

Sports Corner - Photography - FM Forums

Explore Sports Corner photography discussions. Share your photos, discuss gear and techniques, and buy or sell equipment in our marketplace.

www.fredmiranda.com

John_A_G · Jan 28, 2016

to further add, from my own personal use. Look at the OPs photos and how the backgrounds detract vs. the results from shallow DOF created by shallow DOF:

Tazz93 · Jan 28, 2016

Although I don't agree with one of the point of views previously mentioned, (1Dx + 150-600 = Bad idea) I do think you can get closer to wide open with this lens when under 400mm. I took a look at a bunch of crops and that lens is pretty good wide open up til around 450-600mm, with that being the case, I would suggest using it. That separation can make a difference. In your case, you were using 300mm alot so you could have improved the ISO degradation and increased separation to the background by a full stop. Not to mention it wouldn't have taken an IQ hit for being wide open.

Personally, I don't think there's really isn't anything in the mid range super tele market that is terribly compelling. Everything, is fairly slow or prohibitively expensive. You go from slow zooms at $2000 to fast primes at $7000+.

Alastair Norcross · Jan 28, 2016

Good point. The OP's shots are nice and sharp, and take advantage of the great AF and shooting speed of the 1DX, but it would be nice to see more background separation. The 7DII with the 70-200 F2.8 would allow for the same framing, and even a bit tighter, as 200 on crop is the same FOV as 320 on FF, and the OP's shots are at 275mm or wider. The 7DII has almost the same AF as the 1DX (actually, better in some respects), and 10fps isn't much slower than 12fps. The 70-200 F2.8 L IS II is really sharp wide open, and focuses lightning fast with the 7DII. I would like to see how much more background separation the OP could get by shooting the Sigma wide open, but I'm still pretty sure the crop combo would be the better (and cheaper) choice in that situation. Even pairing the 70-200 with the 1.4X extender might be better. F4 at 280mm can give pretty good background separation.

69chevy · Jan 28, 2016

John_A_G said:
69chevy said:

Never mind, I now see you think the issue is DOF.

Aperture is but one piece of the three sided thing we call DOF.

Distance and focal length being the other two.

Click to expand...

Yeah. And if you shoot baseball, your shooting positions are limited. So, trying to increase your distance and use a longer focal length isn't sensible. So, the only sensible way to decrease DOF is to increase aperture.

Sorry, but if your distance to subject is fixed because of where the action is (double play at 2nd base) and where you must shoot from, you need to increase aperture.

Again, it makes little sense to buy a 1dx to shoot sports and pair it with a f/5.6 lens. Just my opinion - better off with less expensive body and a better lens with wider aperture.

Here are a few examples - results are better because lens is better:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1373153/0?keyword=baseball#13081846

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1363701/0?keyword=baseball#13000102

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1361923/0?keyword=baseball#12984189

I didn't say increase distance. That would make the DOF less shallow.

If he zoomed in tighter at the same distance, he would decrease DOF.

So no, aperture is not the only control he has.

69chevy · Jan 28, 2016

John_A_G said:
to further add, from my own personal use. Look at the OPs photos and how the backgrounds detract vs. the results from shallow DOF created by shallow DOF:

Sure they look better, but do they look $3K or more better??

Does it make it wrong to use the lens he does with the camera he has?

I don't think so.

garykohs · Jan 29, 2016

John_A_G said:
Gary - the problem is f/8.0. 300 2.8 is a bit short for baseball especially on full frame. I'm not sure how well your sigma takes a TC.

I would agree the results you're getting are similar to 100-400 - but again, aperture / DOF is the problem with the photos. You need to get down to f/4 or f/2.8 - shallower DOF will allow your images to pop more.

I agree with all that. I wasn't looking for shallow DOF in this case though since it is the only chance most of these kids will get to play at Cougar Field. I was shooting at f8 because I didn't want the background to be nondescript.

I don't know how the 120-300 will take a TC either but after moving to the 1DX from the 1D4 I'm about to find out. I do also have a 7D2 which I know will work well with the 120-300. The problem there is the lack of wide end at 120 with a 1.6 crop.

gipper51 · Jan 30, 2016

How can there possibly be "Lots still to like in the 1DX". I mean, surely this camera is an ancient relic in the digital photography world by now. Far too old to be worthy of taking facebook snapshots, let alone capturing fast action. Might as well use an IPhone instead.

I'd replace this outdated boat anchor with something newer and more capable ASAP.

RedFox88 · Jan 30, 2016

The best camera out there...paired with a value zoom lens. You need a lens that matches your camera. Try the new Canon 100-400 instead.

Lots still to like in the 1DX - baseball with Sigma 150-600 C

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Keyboard shortcuts