Upgrading lenses

[cheeseheadsaint]

I went to the game yesterday! =D Honestly it was the first high school football game I ever went so it was really fun in general. For photography, it was very very frustrating. I swapped between the 55-250mm and the nifty fifty.. The tele for the game and the nifty fifty for our non existence half time due the rain(but that allowed me some shots of cheerleaders and standing players)

Anyways, having a sharp picture was so rare with the 55-250mm(faster shutter speeds ended up with dark pics =( ). but at least I had.. eh.. better than what I anticpated.

Enough talk here's the best action(aka while the game was seriously going on) pic with the tele:

and that is after sharpening so... xD

Edit: sorry about the copyright, only small pic I had uploaded. also planning to use these pics as leverage to gain a press pass instead of hiding behind the yearbook press XD


Exif:
Camera: Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi
Lens: 171 mm
Exposure: Manual exposure, 1/64 sec, f/5.6, ISO 1600
Flash: Off, Did not fire
Date: October 7, 2011 7:45:56PM (timezone not specified)
(23 hours, 31 minutes, 18 seconds ago, assuming image timezone of US Pacific)


and this was all handheld. I don't have a monopod......yet.

 

[cheeseheadsaint]

and now I am reconsidering whether the next thing I get.. should it be a lens? or should I upgrade the body so I can use higher ISOs? Which would get me farther with the shutter speed? (Thanks to Hillsilly for bringing this up) extra ISO or the smaller f-stops? The camera I would be looking at would be the 7D then..

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I'd go for a faster lens rather than a newer body. I have a 7D, and ISO 3200 in low light is marginal and noisy at best. My 5D MK II can do ISO 3200, but i'd prefer to keep lower ISO as well. You can always upgrade the body, but a f/2 prime will give you a much bigger advantage than the same $ spent on a new body.

Look at the focal lengths used for your best images, and rent or borrow a prime lens. You really want f/2 or even faster.

This image was taken with my 7D in Raw at ISO 4000, 85mm @f/1.8, 1/320 sec. I had to use a ton of NR on it, and there is not much detail left.

 

[cheeseheadsaint]

Just out of curiosity, the noise level when the XSi is at ISO 1600 is comparable to what noise level on the 7D?

 

[cheeseheadsaint]

And another pic from the football game:

Also back to the suggestion of monopods, anyone know a specific model that is cheap and sturdy?

 

[dr croubie]

Just out of curiosity, the noise level when the XSi is at ISO 1600 is comparable to what noise level on the 7D?

http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-7D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx has a bit of info, scroll down to the Kodak Colour Control Patches image and you can compare noise between the 7D and 500D, and then http://the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-Rebel-T1i-500D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx you can compare the 500D to 450D.
Frankly, I can't tell much difference, iso1600 on the 7D is a tiny bit better than on the 450/500D, which still look cleaner than 3200 on the 7D, and using in-between-stops isn't worth it imho.

DxoMark also compares ISO, but it just lists the "useful" ISO of a 7D as limited to 854. the 450D tops out at 692 (by simple maths, that gives iso1600 on a 450D the same as iso2000 on 7D).

 

[Old Shooter]

Looking at your lineman shot... Only their upper bodies are sharp because there is relatively little motion occuring there... Even their feet are blurry because 1/60th of a second won't freeze much... If you had a f/2.8 lens you could have shot that at 1/250th... An f/2.0 would have allowed 1/500th... I think that's why people are steering you toward faster lenses versus a body that might just give you a single stop of ISO difference... I would also heed the advice to shoot in RAW and try to clean things up in post versus in-camera JPG processing...