Canon EOS-1D X Mark II Autofocus Talk
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Well after reading all this I must say it's entertaining. My guess is that more shots get fired than most of us non-sports photographers would imagine. It is easy to be trigger happy when the adrenaline flows. 
Not my idea of fun sorting through thousands of shots but for some it's work, their job and income.
Jack
Not my idea of fun sorting through thousands of shots but for some it's work, their job and income.
Jack
Upvote
0
dilbert said:privatebydesign said:
Why don't you go to the tennis and try shoot?
Lets assume that you're a pleb, up in the stands somewhere...
On serve you are shooting the receiver and you're focused on the receiver...
It takes maybe 60ms for the sound of the racquet hitting the ball on serve to reach you, then shutter lag of 36ms plus auditory response time of 150ms. The ball will be at the receiver within 600ms of it hitting the racquet so if you want to shoot the ball arriving at the receiver, you can delay by no more than 350ms or just start shooting when you hear racquet on ball. Getting the ball with receiver in shot without shotgun shooting is very difficult.
Assume for pros that are sitting courtside that they've just got brain response plus shutter lag to deal with, so if they respond to the racquet sound then they have an extra 40ms.
What about shooting based on what you see? Light travels faster than sound, right? Moving your head will take too long. Plus it takes longer for the brain to respond to visual stimuli. (http://www.ceejpublishing.com/Articles/0023.htm)
Call this analysis of shooting at tennis ridiculous all you like but I have seen pros shoot this way. Filling CF cards or a laptop hard drive with shots you throw away costs $0. Missing the magic moment can cost $$$.
Or the numbers on baseball...
9 innings, 2 teams, average of 15 pitches per innings... 270 pitches per game on a day. If you only shoot the batter, maybe 2700 shots per day (you start shooting when he starts to move in response to the pitch.) Now I can see why people think baseball is boring - not very much action
Professionals get much better hit rates than your guestimates. Of the two of us I know which one has shot ATP Grand Slam tournaments, and been paid for doing it. Before DSLR's we used to shoot with 36 exposure film cartridges, I never shot more than 20 rolls a day even shooting low keeper rate sports.
Wimbledon No1 Court.
Attachments
Upvote
0
tpatana said:
This is exactly why for weddings etc. I picked up a nearly virgin (5k clicks) 1DC. While I love my 1DX's (ended up with 2 production rigs and 2 backups); they sound like a train on the tracks in "silent mode". And typically where they are stellar performers (really crappy but aesthetically pleasing old church light) is when I end up with the demand for quiet ceremony shooting.
My solution was to just shoot those times in 4k and utter silence and then for stills - pick out frames.
With the recent price drop for the 1DC; it became "affordable".
While I'm sure the 1DX mkII will do the same at about or slightly more cost than the current street price of nearly virgin 1DC's; I did not want to invest in bigger drives for bigger files and additional faster and way more expensive CFast cards. 20x30 still slice prints are very nice and the solution works for me.
Upvote
0
Shooting NCAA basketball I've often walked away with about 2,000 shots for one entire game, and I'm rather picky about what action I shoot and time my shots.
My hope for the 1D X Mark II is that it can completely replace my 5D mark III for everything. 22 or 24 megapixels is perfect for me since I am very happy with the 5D3's 22. The 5D3's silent shooting would be fantastic, and I find the silent shooting to be perfect for when I'm covering news and want to capture truly candid shots without catching my subject's attention. I also really appreciated silent shooting when I photographed a memorial for a fallen firefighter recently, which would have made my mirror-slapping very inconsiderate in the quiet environment that it was-- silent shooting saved the day.
My hope for the 1D X Mark II is that it can completely replace my 5D mark III for everything. 22 or 24 megapixels is perfect for me since I am very happy with the 5D3's 22. The 5D3's silent shooting would be fantastic, and I find the silent shooting to be perfect for when I'm covering news and want to capture truly candid shots without catching my subject's attention. I also really appreciated silent shooting when I photographed a memorial for a fallen firefighter recently, which would have made my mirror-slapping very inconsiderate in the quiet environment that it was-- silent shooting saved the day.
Upvote
0
H. Jones said:
Yes I think my biggest hope for the 1DX MkII, apart from the MP, is a truthfully silent shutter. I shoot about six symphony orchestra and philharmonic concerts a year and have to be very careful with my timing with the 1 series, I actually use the EOS-M as well at these events just for the quieter shutter.
Upvote
0
GoldWing said:
Very much so on that particular subject.
Though I should still ask, have you ever broken an articulating screen?
I've broken buttons before, but the fully articulated screen that closes facing the body seems like the best kind if you want to keep the LCD in good condition (consider that if the screen is housed in aluminum it would give you a metal surface on the back when the screen is closed).
Upvote
0
GoldWing and H. Jones are right. If you are shooting for a sports organization, there is a lot more to just the actual game to photographing the event. I simply am shooting for individual schools now and do not have such a large photo demand. They request to have sent in about 80-100 photos per event. I can typically do that in 400-500 shots per event, since they only really need a few of each type of photo. Much different if you are for a larger organization. I use burst mode for peak action shots and start just a tad before the action and burst all the way through. But for me, the star player for instance, getting 3-4 great shots of them in peak action is all that is required for that player. Then you get them celebrating a few times, I use my 300mm lens to get them on the sidelines talking to the coach, slapping players' hands, etc. So it's a little easier.
Upvote
0
GoldWing said:
With all that work before and after a game, i can totally understand that you need to shoot a lot more than i do.
Still, i do know a lot of pro sports photographers.
Mostly here in Sweden, but also in USA.
Most of them are either working directly for a paper, or as i do, for a wired agency. We do not have people editing our photos.
Nobody really cares about how many exposures we make.
The thing that actually counts att the end of the day.
Is the quality of the images that we deliver. And that we deliver enough of high quality photos.
I can only talk for myself. If I'm "sloppy", i use the get the work done. But i end up with at a max of 1500 image. And "enough" of images that are "good enough" to keep my clients happy.
If focus well enough on doing my best, and care about timing. I get less than 700 exposures, and more good images.
Would be nice to see your portfolio.
(Mine is found here: http://jkpg-sports.photo/ ).
Upvote
0
Hmm. I never had to do that. And to this day none of the NFL shooters I know do that. I got to and they get to review and sort photos. I used to rate them in camera on the sidelines, upload to laptop, and send or do an edit. Some organizations might be different though.
Upvote
0
iaind said:
bdunbar79 said:
I would like to say that it does happen.
But it´s pretty unusual.
On some really big sports events. Like the Olympics.
Getty set up enormous, wired networks.
And their photographer send all their RAW files directly to their photo editors. (The don´t use WiFi, they use the Ethernet connectors that are available on the latest cameras).
On the Super bowl it´s most likely that some photographers will work like this.
But in the very most instances. It´s usually just photographers working for agencies that are transmitting images straight from the camera. Using WiFi.
Then, they are selecting the most important images. And transmit them as Pegs. Usually that's just a few images.
They also ingest all of their exposures to their laptops.
Select, caption and edit them. Before transmitting them thru FTP.
Upvote
0
It depends on who and the event and the venue, you can soot the following ways:
1. Tethered: Your shots go straight to "The Editor" or an "Editor" - "crushed" for time.
2. Cards: I shoot two both redundant if allowed. At times we're not allowed to. One goes to me the others I keep handing to an assistant who uploads during the game. Another reason I hope Canon keeps the new 1DX MKII with two of the same slots. I don't care what they are... just make them both the same.
3. Premiums: The card I keep, "I" get to edit in my freetime and spend time on a "quality edit". This does not happen during the game. Most of the time, they take the money shots and make few adjustments just to get them to press or on-line. The really good stuff is hanging on my walls This comes back to the JPEG vs. RAW fight. Some editors just want the shots and don't even have time to edit <ROFL> So we shoot in JPEG, I don't like this as stadium lighting can be a killer with shadows and blacks.
4. Off season - pre-season. All cards, press area setup with laptops, no rush we upload our shots and can take a little time to adjust. Most only need some shadows, dehaze, highlights or WB based on lighting.
1. Tethered: Your shots go straight to "The Editor" or an "Editor" - "crushed" for time.
2. Cards: I shoot two both redundant if allowed. At times we're not allowed to. One goes to me the others I keep handing to an assistant who uploads during the game. Another reason I hope Canon keeps the new 1DX MKII with two of the same slots. I don't care what they are... just make them both the same.
3. Premiums: The card I keep, "I" get to edit in my freetime and spend time on a "quality edit". This does not happen during the game. Most of the time, they take the money shots and make few adjustments just to get them to press or on-line. The really good stuff is hanging on my walls
This comes back to the JPEG vs. RAW fight. Some editors just want the shots and don't even have time to edit <ROFL> So we shoot in JPEG, I don't like this as stadium lighting can be a killer with shadows and blacks.4. Off season - pre-season. All cards, press area setup with laptops, no rush we upload our shots and can take a little time to adjust. Most only need some shadows, dehaze, highlights or WB based on lighting.
bdunbar79 said:
Upvote
0
I've almost always gotten time to edit during halftime/post game and transmit wirelessly from a laptop, but it sure is crazy running to a laptop and having a few minutes to organize your best shots, pick out the best of the best, figure out which players are in the shot, then caption them, and ultimately transmit them. You get used to it though, and I'm thankful it keeps me able to edit RAWs and not have to transmit unedited JPEGs.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Similar threads
