Sports Photography - Best Camera

[Rowan]

I am looking for a camera that is best suited to action sports photography. The Canon 1D seems designed fo this but I would be grateful for any comments about how it performs this role in practice and whether it has any market competitors that are worth checking out.

[AMintram]

I can't comment on the Nikon (or other makes), but the 1D is a fantastic camera for sports, hence the reason so many pros use it.

Focus, FPS, shutter lag... you name it, it's all designed with us Sports shooters in mind, even the high ISO performance is very good.

Having said that, good glass is obviously important too, so it can get expensive, but if you want the best...

Andy

[Rowan]

Thanks for your comments Andy. As for the lens - if I go for the ID it is likely to be a toss-up between a 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM perhaps with a 1.4 extender, and the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM. The fact that I am likely to need a fast lens for low light indoor work may swing it in favor of the 70-200 model - at least as the first lens.

Any comments or suggestions would be welcome.

[AMintram]

I use the non-IS 70-200 2.8L and it is ideal if that is the sort of focal length you need. I shoot mainly football (or 'soccer' to those misguided people across the water! :) ) so only use it for goalmouth action but if it fits your requirements then I can heartily recommend it.

I believe the IS version is supposed to be superior to the non-IS version too.

The 100-400 is good lens, but I don't like it for Sports, for two main reasons. 1) As you say, it's not so good for indoor/low light work, and 2) the push-pull zoom is not, IMO, easy to use when following Sports, especially relatively fast moving ones.

Andy

[GenEOS]

If you have the bucks....get you a D1s.

It is more suited for sports. The D60 is a bit slow for primary use as a sports camera.

I really don't mind the 100-400's push-pull zoom. But I can agree it is a bit slow for sports f4.5-5.6
A 70-200 is better suited for all aroound sports at f2.8.
It will be a bit much with a 1.6x factor on a D60, but with a d1s it would be perfect.

If you don't have the deep pockets for a d1s, then a d60 can do the job, just don't expect it to perform miracles, you will have to use some of your talent to get the great shots....much like it used to be....

Ah, the days of focusing and paying attention to technical details....like f-stop and shutter speed...
those were the good old days...

[traveler]

Kind of a no brainer really. A standard 1D....NOT a S version as not only is 3fps not ideal for the typical sports shoot but the file sizes are outrageous for the purpose generally. Unless you are printing posters from it the 1D stands as the master at that field currently.....

[thewhitenite007]

The 1d would be great for baseball and racing thats about it. You wont be able use that 16000 shutter anywhere else. Plus its only 3mp. If your willing to spend buy the 1Ds, newest technology, full frame, and still 1/8000sec shutter which is still great and best of all 11.1mp! which you need to enlarge those great photos youll take with it. Otherwise get the D60 its almost just as good, all you loose is the full frame and 5 mp.

[dbarthel]

Having used my D60 to (sometimes) capture birds in flight, I woud absolutely NOT recommend the D60 for sports. The new, lower price on the 1D makes this a no brainer. I borrowd one last week and was astounded at the speed of the Autofocus. Also, seems to me that the 1.3x multiplier would be a good thing for sports. I concur that the 70-200 would be a better choice than the 100-400, given the constant f2.8 apature.

[thewhitenite007]

How can you not recommend it for sports? The results are fantastic. Im on my school yearbook committee, and thats all I ever use, for track, basketball, football, soccer, and so on. The reason I think you arent getting the full useout of your D60 is because you dont know how to time the shot. The D60 has some shutter lag to it and you need to know exactly when the ball is thrown or the bird takes off BEFORE it happens. For example, the pitcher is winding up his leg is in the air (Click the Shutter) The ball is thrown. You'll have that picture. THe ball has left the pitchers glove and you caught that shot. I've missed plenty of shots not knowing when to press the shutter. It takes time getting used to. What ever you do dont buy a $1000 3 mp camera.

[Transfix]

Sport Shooters are interested in fps. I this case the 1Ds would be the worst option for you to buy.

[cardigan1979]

Well I've just bought a second hand Kodak DC 520 and find it superb for sports.

I know a few press lads and if they use Canon they use the 1-D.

these are guys shooting for national newspapers so they wouldn't buy anything but the best.

I'm on the look out for a canon 2.8 70-200m USM IS.

Is the IS worth the extra cash.

Any help...

[thewhitenite007]

I have interned for the Star Ledger newspaper, which is New Jersey's newspaper. They use Nikon D1s.

[Cecil Walker]

Transfix wrote:
Sport Shooters are interested in fps. I this case the 1Ds would be the worst option for you to buy.

I'm one sports shooter that would definitely be ok with 3fps and 11mp. I'm a motorsports photog (motorcycles and cars) and do quite a bit of poster work. I would love to use the 1Ds.

I'm currently using a 3fps Canon D30 so I know it works. It actually scares me to think of how many more photos I would have to sort through at 8fps! In a little over a year, I've shot ~60K photos with the D30...

Cecil Walker

[photoik]

I have the Canon D60. A couple of weeks ago I asked about sports photography. The main reply was that everything depends on a fast lens. Therefore I bought a Canon 50mm/f1.4. I just love it. I try to keep the ISO at 200 (avoid noise), shutter speed at 1/100 - 1/200, f on camera 2.5. Last weekend I took really good photos during a futsal tournament. My results were good and with high resolution, no noise, I'm even still able to crop my pictures. The new lens makes also great portraits. That way I have a super lens !!! I do have a lens 70-300mm at f 4-f5 and one 28-105mm at f2.8-4.0. They are great for outdoors, but not for indoors. Iris

[thewhitenite007]

The main thing is Fast lenses. Thats what i tell everyone.

[oliver]

I am new to this forum, but do have a D30. I am interested in buying a D1 or D1s. Do the latter two have a shutter lag comparable to a film camera such as a standard EOS 1v or is it still much slower?

[Sporto]

If you can afford the 1D that is your camera with good glass 70-200 f2.8 L Canon. If you can not afford the 1D I would suggest the Canon 10D - much faster focus in low light.

Sporto

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just wanted to clarify some of the specs flying around.

The 1D is 4.15 Megapixels, 8 fps. with a 1.3X "equivelent crop factor"

the 1Ds is 11 Megapixels, 3 fps, with a full frame CCD

Both cameras autofocus, shutter lag, and all around performance are among the fastest of any SLR made. Digital or Film.

[Cecil Walker]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
Just wanted to clarify some of the specs flying around.

The 1D is 4.15 Megapixels, 8 fps. with a 1.3X "equivelent crop factor"

the 1Ds is 11 Megapixels, 3 fps, with a full frame CCD

Both cameras autofocus, shutter lag, and all around performance are among the fastest of any SLR made. Digital or Film.

I think your clarification needs some clarification! ;)
The Canon 1Ds is not a CCD camera... it uses CMOS

Cecil

[paul33]

Seems to be a lot of blinkered nonsense being spoken here, often supported by inaccurate camera spec detail !

Assuming you intend to cover the majority of sports where unpredictable movement is concerned, it is, as suggested above somewhere, a no-brainer. The Canon 1D is a division or two clear of any other camera ........ there may be arguments over the next best but that's all.

I moved up to a 1D earlier this year and the 8fps, coupled with blistering AF speed, coupled with good low light performance is a dream.

Yes, other cameras can do sport with a good lens. I got by with a D30 & 70-200IS f2.8 for ages but keepers were often as low as 15%, the rest were out of focus. With the 1D, you can bank on 80% plus keepers to choose from ........ even with tough sports like ice hockey in dimly lit UK ice rinks.

If you've got the chance at a decent price, get the 1D, experience the best sports camera around and leave the others to kid themselves !!!

Paul
--------------------
http://www.1dforum.co.uk

[colorblind]

Of course for the 1D to shine you need the perfect sports lens.

I recommend a Tokina 16-200 6.7-8.0 with a couple of Kenko 2x teleconverters. ;-)

[Slow]

Paul33 wrote:
Seems to be a lot of blinkered nonsense being spoken here, often supported by inaccurate camera spec detail !

If you've got the chance at a decent price, get the 1D, experience the best sports camera around and leave the others to kid themselves !!!

Paul
--------------------
http://www.1dforum.co.uk

Sounds like sense to me! And, if you can ever justify the expense, get the 200mm f1.8L....