5D Mark iii

[luckyheel317]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

 

[Zeee]

You are used to eye detect and all the programming options with the R7. Do you really want to go back to a DLSR. After 6 years of mirrorless I'd give up photography if I had to go back. Even with my lowly R which had very slow fps which resulted in terrible frame to frame blackout it was still my go to body. My 7D2 never came out of the bag again until I sold it. Eye detect AF was just too much fun.

I had both the 5D3 and 5D4. If you are OK to use a DLSR I would pick the 5D4. Awesome sensor that went into the R.

For sports I'd want a FF that's pretty good with higher ISO. Not as critical with modern day NR software and apps. FF gives you more frame to work with. Maybe a used R8 if you can get a good price. Or an R61 which would cost less even less. It was highly regarded when released. I don't know anything about the RP.

.

 

[thunder storm]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)

You should go R8 imo. The R8 has great AF, while it's not extremely expensive. No DSLR, no slow AF mirrorless stuff, but a fast AFing R8, that's what you need.

...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

 

[Sittatunga]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

I would say that a used R8 would be better than any of your listed alternatives. It has far better autofocus and tracking and a better, faster low light sensor, but it won't use your LP-E6 sized batteries. Full-frame cameras are normally better in low light than APS-C, but the problem is that, if you end up having to crop the R8's output with your current lenses to APS-C to get your usual framing, you will end up with just over 9 megapixels compared to your current 32. A new R8 body is about the same price as a used EF 300mm f/2.8 II over here, a used one is about the same price as a used 5D IV or an original model R6. The R6 is a nicer camera that uses your current batteries but the R8 should have better autofocussing and tracking. You don't appear to be range limited for your gymn and basketball pictures for either format so the R8 should be an improvement for those, but I think you would be better off with a bigger lens than a bigger sensor for the evening football.

 

[Zeee]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)

You should go R8 imo. The R8 has great AF, while it's not extremely expensive. No DSLR, no slow AF mirrorless stuff, but a fast AFing R8, that's what you need.

I'm high on the R8 as well. As full frame vs crop. When I shot sports my R6II came out of the bag and the R7 stayed home.

...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

 

[Picsal]

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

For soccer, I recommend a recent mirrorless camera over a DLSR, mostly for the enhancements in autofocus, but also for the higher frame rates. As legendary as the 5D is, I doubt it's autofocus can compare to the R6II especially in low light. You'll get way more keepers and you'll find more magic moments.

Noise performance and image quality are often the questions in favor of the 5D. I fall into the camp that believes the denoise tools available today make higher ISO's a moot point.

I played soccer for 40 years, coached for 20, and have daughters who played youth soccer. My biggest advice is to enjoy and get low - as close to field level or even the ground as possible.

 

[Morvegil]

Going back to a 5dmiii would be a serious downgrade, and its so different. I had one, its a great camera but its outdated (Sorry old dudes who grip on to "it works fine for me")

 

[KevinRA]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

So if you need to use the 100-400 on a R7 for reach - e.g. 70-200 2.8 is not long enough, a a full frame sensor is not the answer - as you'll just end up cropping more. E.g. a 10MP or so cropped full frame image wont look much different to a 30MP APSC when the subject viewed the same size. The full frame low light advantage largely vanishes when focal length limited and forced to crop. It is very real if you can fill the frame equally.

The 300 2.8 II is superb on the R7 - really good. (Former R7 and current 300 2.8 II owner). The II is worth it over the I at f/2.8 on a high res sensor - on a low res sensor or f/4 the mark I would be OK. The mark II is OK even with a 1.4X TC on the R7 giving 420mm f/4 vs 420mm f/5.6.

The ultimate option if you can stretch it is the 400 2.8 II - heavy though. (I'm perhaps wrongly assuming the RF 400 2.8 is not what you are after....). Or even a 200-400 f/4 with 1.4X TC might be OK if you can manage the weight and want a zoom?

Do you use the latest raw conversion software to develop your images? E.g. Lightroom or DXO's latest noise reduction? This gets a couple of extra stops of noise performance without any lens or camera update.

 

[Zeee]

One more thing about a DSLR and ML. No microfocus adjustment. I never liked and was one main reason I was eager to transition to ML.

 

[EduPortas]

Thank you, in advance

I'd go with the 5DM3 or M4 any day of the week when talking about low-light shooting. That big sensor with big sensels can still work some magic.

MLs are really good with available light but struggle mightly when there's little light hitting the sensor and in consequence what you're seeing through the EVF.

DSLR tend to fare much better here since the AF module and the OVF are different pieces of the same camera.

My R8 struggles in low-light, even with rapid lenses (RF50mm 1.8, EF35mm F2) and I like to dust off my 7DM2 just to confirm that even older tech has some advantages when taking photos in bad light conditions.

 

[R2D2]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

+4 for the 300/2.8 (Mark II if possible). It'll change the way you shoot (be prepared!).

Skip the old DSLRs. As mentioned, it doesn't take much cropping at all to lose that FF advantage!

R2

 

[luckyheel317]

Thank you for all of the opinions and suggestions. They are all greatly appreciated.

 

[drsnoopy]

You are used to eye detect and all the programming options with the R7. Do you really want to go back to a DLSR. After 6 years of mirrorless I'd give up photography if I had to go back. Even with my lowly R which had very slow fps which resulted in terrible frame to frame blackout it was still my go to body. My 7D2 never came out of the bag again until I sold it. Eye detect AF was just too much fun.

I had both the 5D3 and 5D4. If you are OK to use a DLSR I would pick the 5D4. Awesome sensor that went into the R.

For sports I'd want a FF that's pretty good with higher ISO. Not as critical with modern day NR software and apps. FF gives you more frame to work with. Maybe a used R8 if you can get a good price. Or an R61 which would cost less even less. It was highly regarded when released. I don't know anything about the RP.

.

 

[Andy01]

Good morning.

I currently have an R7 and am pretty happy with it for the dadtogropher pictures I take of my kids and their sports. My daughter is a soccer GK, my son is a basketball player and my younger daughter is a gymnast.

My lens lineup suits fairly well for all three as I have:

• Canon EF 100-400L IS USM II for soccer
• Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM II and Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 for the indoor sports

I also have the RF-S 18-150 and Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 which don't get used too often, even for every day pics. The 18-35 just doesn't seem to work as well as it should...anyway....

My main question is for soccer pics at night. My daughter just started HS and most of her games will be early evening as the light is getting less and less. Obviously, I won't be able to get down to the field to get close, but even if I did, my current long lens, while absolutely fantastic, just isn't the choice for lower light.

A question, or rather questions;

• When you say lower light, what are we talking about ? Is the issue that you are ISO limited due to noise, or that it is getting too dark for your R7 to actually focus ?
• Can you give some examples, preferably with sample photos with full exif attached, of the kind of shots and the camera settings used.
• What focal lengths are you using mostly ? Are you focal length limited at 200mm (ie. 70-200 f2.8) or are you getting limited at 400mm ?

The reason for the first question is that a poster above mentioned that a 5D (iii or iv) DSLR will be better than a R8 in low light - that is only true if the light is so low that you can barely see the subject. The early mirrorless (think M3 or earlier) were really terrible in dim light and any DSLR would run rings around them, but that is no longer true. The only time a R8 AF is likely to fail is if the light is extremely low AND there is low contrast AND there isn't many/any vertical lines - like a late blue-hour landscape or seascape with only horizontal lines (even then I have not personally had a problem but I have heard of others having some difficulties). See sample below.

In every other respect except robustness/weatherproofing and a few Mp on 5D iv, IMO the R8 will run rings around either 5D iii or iV.

The second part to the question, which no-one has mentioned is what software do you use to process your photos (I am assuming that you shoot RAW, and if you don't - you should ).

Processing a R7 RAW image shot at ISO 12800 (which would imply pretty low light unless you are using excessively high shutter speeds) will yield fairly low noise photos if processed with something like DxO Photolab 8. If you are either shooting JPEG or processing RAWs with an older software, your "upgrade" could cost you a lot less than a new camera.

Not R7, but R10 + RF 100-400 - f8, 1/500th, ISO 12800. Processed with DxO. Th peacock was standing in deep shadow on an overcast day (it was drizzling) - the wonders of modern noise reduction :-D





This is an example of a blue hour shot (that has been boosted somewhat in post - the foreground out of camera was a fully black silhouette and stars are visible) and while I realise that this is not shooting moving sportspeople, the R8 didn't hesitate in attaining focus. R8 does NOT struggle to AF in lower light.

So, I was thinking of picking up a cheap 5D Mark III or IV as a potential replacement for the R7 in those situations and wanted to get some opinions on whether that is the best choice. Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

I would agree with posts above that the best "budget" R camera option for lower light sports would be R8 (I have one as well to complement my R10 and it's AF is slightly better than R7/R10) - which was the reason for the questions about focal lengths - because obviously 400mm on R8/R/RP/5D iii or 5D iv would be an equivalent FoV to 250mm on a R7 (potentially less due to R7's extra cropping power with 32Mp).

So, if you are currently focal length limited then dropping to FF is going to create a need for a 600mm f4 lens (or similar).

Perhaps first consider your noise reduction - it may open a bunch of new possibilities. I would never consider using higher than ISO 1600 with my 70D (last APS-C DSLR) or ISO 3200 (maybe 6400 at a push) with 6D ii (last FF DSLR), but getting DxO suddenly made ISO 12800 on APS-C and ISO 25600 on FF quite acceptable with more available if pushed.

 

[JohnSil]

Good morning.

Or, whether a mirrorless option is better (R or RP)...or, if another option is a 300mm f/2.8 on the R7.

Thank you, in advance

I just want to point out that a 300mm will only be of value IF you're trying to get more reach.

Your 70-200 is the same speed so you only gain reach but lose the zoom. IF you put that 300 on a FF you're back to the same reach as crop with the 200 at higher mp.

A used R5 is about $2000 now and it's 45mp so capable of cropping deeper and has a very decent AF though probably the same as the R7, I think they're about the same. vintage AF?

Were you thinking the 5D just to have 2 bodies and because they're cheap? I think you can get a 1Dx mkl for the same price as a 5DlV and it's twice the camera, especially if it ever rains?! Good luck!!!

John

 

[luckyheel317]

Thank you for that thorough response, Andy. My main issue is noise at those levels and I am shooting .jpg. I know, I know, RAW is better, but, as I mentioned, I'm not a pro and I don't have a lot of time to process the photos from the games.

 

[luckyheel317]

Were you thinking the 5D just to have 2 bodies and because they're cheap? I think you can get a 1Dx mkl for the same price as a 5DlV and it's twice the camera, especially if it ever rains?! Good luck!!!

John

Yes, that was the main focus. Getting a great, cheap FF camera for better low-light capability. However, as Andy suggested above, maybe it's just shooting in RAW and denoising the photo.

I just absolutely love the 100-400 lens and the images it produces, so it was more of a situation where I want to continue using the lens, if possible, under HS field lighting.

 

[Andy01]

Thank you for that thorough response, Andy. My main issue is noise at those levels and I am shooting .jpg. I know, I know, RAW is better, but, as I mentioned, I'm not a pro and I don't have a lot of time to process the photos from the games.

If you want to use the "out of camera" photos you could shoot RAW, pull the RAW images into DxO PhotoLab, and "edit" the first image - simply by turning on DeepPrime 3 or the DeepPrime XD (depends on how bad the noise is), then right click - Copy "Copy Correction Settings", highlight the rest of your shots (whether it be 10 or 500), right click "Paste Correction Settings", and it will apply whatever you have done to the first one to the rest. This process shouldn't take more than 5 minutes maximum, probably less (assuming no viewing or culling of other shots.

Then select all images and "Export to Disc" as JPEG, and walk away for a coffee. When you return you will have every shot in JPEG (with all noise removed) with lens corrections, a degree of camera+lens specific sharpening applied, and whatever else you wanted. You could then review the photos, cull them out, and if you wanted to display or print some, then do selective further processing on those only.

DxO PhotoLab (if you don't have it) is IMO excellent, especially for noise reduction and raw conversion (including excellent camera and lens corrections) and is available as a full functioning trial for 30 days (at least it was 9 months ago) to test it out before committing. May be cheaper than buying new gear and I think you might find the process to be surprisingly quick and easy.

 

[Sittatunga]

Thank you for that thorough response, Andy. My main issue is noise at those levels and I am shooting .jpg. I know, I know, RAW is better, but, as I mentioned, I'm not a pro and I don't have a lot of time to process the photos from the games.

If you want to use the "out of camera" photos you could shoot RAW, pull the RAW images into DxO PhotoLab, and "edit" the first image - simply by turning on DeepPrime 3 or the DeepPrime XD (depends on how bad the noise is), then right click - Copy "Copy Correction Settings", highlight the rest of your shots (whether it be 10 or 500), right click "Paste Correction Settings", and it will apply whatever you have done to the first one to the rest. This process shouldn't take more than 5 minutes maximum, probably less (assuming no viewing or culling of other shots.

It's even easier to select all the images before you make the global payments such as DeepPRIME and perhaps the automatic micro contrast.. You don't have to copy the correction settings and you've already selected the images to batch export to JPEG.

Then select all images and "Export to Disc" as JPEG, and walk away for a coffee. When you return you will have every shot in JPEG (with all noise removed) with lens corrections, a degree of camera+lens specific sharpening applied, and whatever else you wanted. You could then review the photos, cull them out, and if you wanted to display or print some, then do selective further processing on those only.

DxO PhotoLab (if you don't have it) is IMO excellent, especially for noise reduction and raw conversion (including excellent camera and lens corrections) and is available as a full functioning trial for 30 days (at least it was 9 months ago) to test it out before committing. May be cheaper than buying new gear and I think you might find the process to be surprisingly quick and easy.

 

[luckyheel317]

Thank you for that thorough response, Andy. My main issue is noise at those levels and I am shooting .jpg. I know, I know, RAW is better, but, as I mentioned, I'm not a pro and I don't have a lot of time to process the photos from the games.

If you want to use the "out of camera" photos you could shoot RAW, pull the RAW images into DxO PhotoLab, and "edit" the first image - simply by turning on DeepPrime 3 or the DeepPrime XD (depends on how bad the noise is), then right click - Copy "Copy Correction Settings", highlight the rest of your shots (whether it be 10 or 500), right click "Paste Correction Settings", and it will apply whatever you have done to the first one to the rest. This process shouldn't take more than 5 minutes maximum, probably less (assuming no viewing or culling of other shots.

Then select all images and "Export to Disc" as JPEG, and walk away for a coffee. When you return you will have every shot in JPEG (with all noise removed) with lens corrections, a degree of camera+lens specific sharpening applied, and whatever else you wanted. You could then review the photos, cull them out, and if you wanted to display or print some, then do selective further processing on those only.

DxO PhotoLab (if you don't have it) is IMO excellent, especially for noise reduction and raw conversion (including excellent camera and lens corrections) and is available as a full functioning trial for 30 days (at least it was 9 months ago) to test it out before committing. May be cheaper than buying new gear and I think you might find the process to be surprisingly quick and easy.

Thank you, Andy. I think I’ll try this out.