Best for sports photography?

[IncompletePete]

What would be best for sports photography, I've read loads of conflicting opinions on whether the 10D or the 20D would be better?

PS. I can't afford a Mk II!

[timmyquest]

The 20D

[Belmondo]

The main benefits to the 20D for sports photography is the startup time, frame rate, and buffer size. All are clearly superior to the 10D.

[maderito]

What would be best for sports photography, I've read loads of conflicting opinions on whether the 10D or the 20D would be better?!
I haven't read any conflicting opinions about which would be better. The issue is whether the incremental improvements held by the 20D over the 10D are enough to qualify the 20D a as a legitimate cam for sports photography.

Among the various reviews already published, there is cautious praise of the 20D for its potential in sports photography - not as good as the 1D/1D MKII, but significantly better than the 10D in autofocus speed and focus precision, tracking of moving subjects in AI Servo mode, startup time, max frame rate, CF write speeds (enabling extended shot sequences, especially in JPEG mode), and shutter lag. These are improvements a sports or PJ shooter would want.

Personally, I find that my current 10D does everything I could want except capture good action shots. Any improvement would be welcomed. I'm hoping for a "quantum" level of improvement over the 10D as promised by one reviewer.

The 20D is going to cost twice as much as a used 10D in excellent condition. Is it twice as good – or more importantly, is it capable enough for sports photography? IMO, the jury is still out. :?

[Persian-Rice]

1D Mk1....... thats is your best bang for the buck. If you need to do sports, consider you need a long telephoto, which are the same price or more expensive then the camera itself.

Cheers.

[sGu]

1D and 400mm above, plus 70-200mm f2.8 IS ...

that's what i use to shoot football anyway, hope it helps

[EXA1a]

What would be best for sports photography, I've read loads of conflicting opinions on whether the 10D or the 20D would be better?

PS. I can't afford a Mk II!

Okay, I did read your PS.
20D is the answer. Besides other advantages, most importantly AF is supposed to be really good (close to 1DMkII). Read this:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=263778&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

--Jens--

[Danny Boy]

Okay, since the subject here is: "Best for sports photography", I do have to ask, is the subject about bodies or lenses? Since I have a DRebel and want to take pics of my daughter at soccer games, I don't really think a new body is a possibility, unless my old parents want to buy me one... out of the question.

Let's talk lenses. 70-200 f/4 or the f/2.8? I'll be doing outdoor stuff (soccer, baseball, etc.) but my little girl like to figure skate. Tough there, eh? I don't want to tug around the 2.8 (twice the price and weight) but should I for the both sports?

Anyone else in this situation?

Dan

[Andy_T]

Dannyboy,

you might think about the 85/1.8, 135/2.8 or 200/2.8.

Or, of course, the Sigma 70-200/2.8

Best regards,
Andy

[Persian-Rice]

20D is the answer. Besides other advantages, most importantly AF is supposed to be really good (close to 1DMkII). Read this:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=263778&page=0&view=collap sed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

--Jens--

I don't think I ever read anyone saying it is close to the mkII............
It is actually stated that the performance is good, yet not like the 1 Series and they have been shooting with 2.8's. It is even stated that the AF will likely deteriorate as soon as you get smaller then 2.8. Since the 1d's are perfect for AF, that means that the **D's are still too slow, though a good photographer can still deal with that.

The major advantage for sports IMHO is not the fps or even the start up time. Its ISO : noise quality, this way you can use cheaper lenses like the 70-200 f4, but make it fast enough under low light conditions by running a higher ISO with minimal noise increase. Thats the big bonus since it will save you money over the long haul.

Cheers.

[IncompletePete]

I am looking into a 1D Mk I, however surely megapixel count isn't good enough to get published....?

Lens-wise I'm fine, I use a 400mm sigma lens mainly, along with a 28-70 EX. Next on my shopping list is a 70-200 L IS!

[defordphoto]

I am looking into a 1D Mk I, however surely megapixel count isn't good enough to get published....?

Lens-wise I'm fine, I use a 400mm sigma lens mainly, along with a 28-70 EX. Next on my shopping list is a 70-200 L IS!

Oh yes it is Grasshopper. 6.5mp is good enough to get published and what used to be the world's best PJ camera, the MKII's baby brother, the 1D, is only 4mp and was published in multitudes of publications daily.

[defordphoto]

What would be best for sports photography, I've read loads of conflicting opinions on whether the 10D or the 20D would be better?

PS. I can't afford a Mk II!

The 10D is quite sufficient. I shot sports with mine for close to a year before getting the MKII. However, the 20D is now clearly the choice and much more robust than the 10D.

[IncompletePete]

I am looking into a 1D Mk I, however surely megapixel count isn't good enough to get published....?

Lens-wise I'm fine, I use a 400mm sigma lens mainly, along with a 28-70 EX. Next on my shopping list is a 70-200 L IS!

Oh yes it is Grasshopper. 6.5mp is good enough to get published and what used to be the world's best PJ camera, the MKII's baby brother, the 1D, is only 4mp and was published in multitudes of publications daily.

But 4mp certainly isn't anything to shout about now, especially as most P&S cameras are now 4mp! I guess it'd be fine for small pictures, but for anything bigger it'll just become pixelated.

How much are they going for generally anyway? About $2000 second hand?

[defordphoto]

I am looking into a 1D Mk I, however surely megapixel count isn't good enough to get published....?

Lens-wise I'm fine, I use a 400mm sigma lens mainly, along with a 28-70 EX. Next on my shopping list is a 70-200 L IS!

Oh yes it is Grasshopper. 6.5mp is good enough to get published and what used to be the world's best PJ camera, the MKII's baby brother, the 1D, is only 4mp and was published in multitudes of publications daily.

But 4mp certainly isn't anything to shout about now, especially as most P&S cameras are now 4mp! I guess it'd be fine for small pictures, but for anything bigger it'll just become pixelated.

How much are they going for generally anyway? About $2000 second hand?

It'll do 8x10's all day long and also up to about 16x20 with little degradation. Don't underestimate the 1D just because it's only 4mp. It produces an excellent photograph. One advantage the 1D had over the 10D is that its photosensors are much larger and therefor can produce quite an astonishing photo.

They run $2k to $2.2k depending on condition and # of acuations.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Pete,

As stated above.. the 1D was THE Camera of choice for sports and nature photographers shooting digiital frr about 3 years. In that period it was the most publish Canon digital.

To this day,. there are more 1D files in print in professional and commercial publications than any other Canon Digital.

Likewise, there are still thousands of pros getting published with the 1D.

Its 4.5 MP raw files will deftly print up to 13"X19" and larger with little problem.

So.. yes if your point is that 8MP may be better.. you are corrrect,. but your point concerning the "publishability" of the 1D is simply not true.

[timmyquest]

I am looking into a 1D Mk I, however surely megapixel count isn't good enough to get published....?

Lens-wise I'm fine, I use a 400mm sigma lens mainly, along with a 28-70 EX. Next on my shopping list is a 70-200 L IS!

You could worry about pixles and be stuck with cheaper sub-par high MP cameras...or you can get over this myth and enjoy the 45 point AF system of a 1 series camera.

[sGu]

I am looking into a 1D Mk I, however surely megapixel count isn't good enough to get published....?

Lens-wise I'm fine, I use a 400mm sigma lens mainly, along with a 28-70 EX. Next on my shopping list is a 70-200 L IS!

i'd say still 60% of pros are still hanging on to their 1D, pretty much everyone i see at football ground are using 1D, and their shots are published in daily national papers and images are sold worldwide, if that's not publishing, what is?

if you go to my site, all recent galleries are shot using 1D, especially football ones, i can easily print them A3 without retouching.

[IncompletePete]

I'm only cautious about the megapixel count due to my fondness of blowing my pictures up to A3 size, but judging by most pics, that shouldn't be a problem.

I am now pretty much swung, save up for a second hand 1D! However, I've read about banding issues, did any of the firmware updates solve this?

[sGu]

banding issue existed with low serial bodies, and i believe Canon has fixed most of them if not all, as long as firmware version is 1.4.0 on the 1D, you shouldn't experience many problems.