How to spend my next $1k or $2k??? - a little help please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

To help reduce the number of frames where the camera picks exposure poorly I have gone to manually setting exposure during warm-ups and for this rink 1/500 f/3.2 ISO 1600 got me these. I also preset the WB using an expo disk so that all that is left to do in PP is to crop.

---

Those settings are actually not that bad. The ice-track I shot at about 3 weeks ago is fully covered. It does however have some sort of tent over the track and it seems to be letting in just a little bit of light. I could manage to get 1/1000 F4 ISO-3200. I have also done a shoot in open air at night which was a complete different story. If you want to see, here are my latest shots at the ice-track.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

I attribute the softness to the Sigma and the noise to the Rebel XT. Though it could be that the two resolution of the Rebel XT is also hurting.
I also worry that no matter what camera I pick the Sigma will always be soft.

---

The noise is definitely the camera. The sharpness is not necessarily the Sigma's fault. Although the Sigma will probably get significantly better stopped down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

I worry about the 70-200 f/4.0, not that it's not a good lense, but given that I often am shooting in the 2.8-3.5 range that I won't be able to get the shots I am now.

---

I am using the 5D2 and 70-200 F4L IS for these shots. Personally I'd rather have the f2.8 lens for these indoors things. But I rarely do this kind of photography so I can live with F4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

I have been on the fence on the 24-105, I like the IQ I have seen, but on a crop body I worry about the lack on the wide angle end of things. Also, I am pretty happy with the IQ and range of the 17-85 I have.

---

If you're happy with the 17-85, just go with it and put your money in the places where you can benefit the most.

Apart from the sharpness of your Sigma and the noise of the 350D. You will notice a major impact when buying a faster body. 40D and upwards. The lag between pressing the shutter, auto-focus and the actual making of the photo will decrease quite a bit and that is very noticeable in sports-photography.

And the best thing about this all. You don't have to justify all the expenses to your wife. She seems to like your hobby;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MNHockey

This is a good idea, any clue as to what the warranty would be on these? Do you still get the normal warranty?

---

1 Year limited warranty according to "what's in the box?" section. (at least for the lens)

Hi, I also shoot a lot of hockey. I use the 7D and I'd say it's perfect for it. (I suppose the 1D4 is even better, but that's out of my budget anyway.)

Regarding lenses I mainly use either 70-200 f/4 (in really well lit arenas) or otherwise 85/1.8. I've never tried 60D but my guess is that it's a lot more like the 7D than your current rebel. I'm sure 60D will work great for hockey (as well as just about any other type of photography).

(To be honest, f/4 is not very good for hockey although useable. As mentioned I use it in really well lit arenas and then the typical setting can be ISO5000 - f/4 - 1/800. See the small sample shot below that were shot with these settings.)

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7208/6...49a4582f_z.jpg

My budget advice would be to go for a really fast lens and a 60D. Choose between 85/1.8 or 100/2 - both are great for many indoor events. I beleive this would fit your 1-2k budget. If you are willing to spend a lot, the 7D paired with a 70-200/2.8 IS II would be difficult to beat.

Quote:

---

7D (Very nice, but do I want to spend the extra over the 60D)

---

Yes, yes, yes----Though I have not used the 60D, I was the proud owner of the 50D.......and the improvement in my photos jumped a great deal when I purchased teh 7D. I know the general idea is to get good glass first, but I think in your case, the 7D would be would be a good investment. I am probably the outsider on recommendations for you, but the 7D really did make a huge difference for me. It was probably the single best upgrade that I have made.

I agree with cls on the f/4 vs. f/2.8. As for the 7D vs. 60D, the 7D's AF system is very good, but you pay more for it, whereas the 60D's is more basic. But, I've got around 15 games and thousands of images under my belt this season and I've managed okay with the 60D's AF; I'm sure if I had a 7D my keeper rate would have been higher though. As for image quality and noise, by all reports the 60D and 7D are very close, with the edge going to the 7D.

I had a look at your pictures and they look good, except they are under exposed between 3/4-1 stop (causing the whites to look grey), I'm only posting the one as an example, but the other image is the same. When I'm shooting hockey, I shoot in manual and over exposure by +1.3-1.6 to compensate for how the camera (and even then I still have to push in LR, thus why I want a camera I can shoot at 6400 or 12800) wants to take the white ice and make it grey.

Here's your original followed by a little PP in Lightroom:

Attachment 648

Attachment 649

Thanks for the great responses and especially to bigblue1ca. I looked at those pictures for hours and thought they were fine and then you make one little change and it makes a world of difference. This has been very helpful for me to talk this through.

No problem MNHockey, happy to have helped. One thing I forgot to mention, because there is so much white in hockey shots, make sure you watch your histogram both on your camera and in Lightroom. If you look at the histogram for your original image versus the one I edited in LR, you'll note the histogram in my image is further to the right, representing that there are more whites in the image. (Not sure how much you know about histograms, but the basics are that the right of a histogram represents the whites, the left - blacks, and the middle - greys).