Index  •   • New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New Posts  •   • RTAT  •   • "Best Of"  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras
Thread started 11 Sep 2004 (Saturday) 07:32
PREV/NEXT

Best for sports photography?

 
IncompletePete
Senior Member
IncompletePete's Avatar
268 posts

Joined Aug 2004

UK
MORE INFO

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!

Sep 11, 2004 07:32

www.sportsshooter.com/​pete
www.petelorence.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
timmyquest
Goldmember
4,172 posts
Joined Dec 2003

Outside of Chicago
MORE INFO
banned

The 20D

Sep 11, 2004 07:34

Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

LOG IN TO REPLY
Belmondo
Cream of the Crop
Belmondo's Avatar
42,727 posts

Joined Jul 2003

92210
MORE INFO

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.

Sep 11, 2004 08:36

I'm not short. I'm concentrated awesome!

LOG IN TO REPLY
maderito
Goldmember
maderito's Avatar
1,336 posts

Joined Oct 2003

Southern New England
MORE INFO

IncompletePete wrote:
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. ?!

Sep 11, 2004 11:39

Woody Lee
http://pbase.com/mader​itoexternal link
http://maderito.fotki.​comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Persian-Rice
Goldmember
1,516 posts
Joined Apr 2004

Behind a viewfinder.
MORE INFO

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.

Sep 11, 2004 12:10


LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
sGu
Goldmember
sGu's Avatar
2,367 posts

Joined May 2004

London, UK
MORE INFO

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

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

Sep 11, 2004 12:48

Portfolioexternal link | Musingexternal link
Advertising & Editorial Photographer

LOG IN TO REPLY
EXA1a
Member
242 posts
Joined Oct 2003
MORE INFO

IncompletePete wrote:
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.robgalbrait​h.com ...collapsed&sb=5&o=&f​part=1external link

--Jens--

Sep 11, 2004 15:17



LOG IN TO REPLY
Danny ­ Boy
Senior Member
Danny Boy's Avatar
301 posts

Joined Jul 2004

Illinois, USA
MORE INFO

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

Sep 11, 2004 15:37



LOG IN TO REPLY
Andy_T
Compensating for his small ... sensor
9,860 posts
Joined Jan 2003

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
MORE INFO

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

Sep 11, 2004 15:51

some cameras, some lenses,
and still a lot of things to learn...
(so post processing examples on my images are welcome :D)
If you like the forum, vote for it where it really counts!
CLICK here for the EOS FAQ
CLICK here for the Post Processing FAQ
CLICK here to understand a bit more about BOKEH

LOG IN TO REPLY
Persian-Rice
Goldmember
1,516 posts
Joined Apr 2004

Behind a viewfinder.
MORE INFO

EXA1a wrote:
20D is the answer. Besides other advantages, most importantly AF is supposed to be really good (close to 1DMkII). Read this:
http://www.robgalbrait​h.com ...collapsed&sb=5&o=&f​part=1external link

--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.

Sep 11, 2004 15:58


LOG IN TO REPLY
IncompletePete
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
IncompletePete's Avatar
268 posts

Joined Aug 2004

UK
MORE INFO

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!

Sep 12, 2004 10:18

www.sportsshooter.com/​pete
www.petelorence.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
defordphoto
MKIII Aficionado
9,888 posts
Joined Oct 2002

Pacific Northwest
MORE INFO

IncompletePete wrote:
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.

Sep 12, 2004 10:24

defordphoto | Celebrating the art of photography®
SD500, 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIII
www.ussbaracing.comexternal link | www.rfmsports.comexternal link | www.nwfjcc.comexternal link
An austere and pleasant poetry of the real. Ansel Adams

LOG IN TO REPLY
defordphoto
MKIII Aficionado
9,888 posts
Joined Oct 2002

Pacific Northwest
MORE INFO

IncompletePete wrote:
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.

Sep 12, 2004 10:26

defordphoto | Celebrating the art of photography®
SD500, 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIII
www.ussbaracing.comexternal link | www.rfmsports.comexternal link | www.nwfjcc.comexternal link
An austere and pleasant poetry of the real. Ansel Adams

LOG IN TO REPLY
IncompletePete
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
IncompletePete's Avatar
268 posts

Joined Aug 2004

UK
MORE INFO

RFMSports wrote:
IncompletePete wrote:
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?

Sep 12, 2004 10:28

www.sportsshooter.com/​pete
www.petelorence.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
defordphoto
MKIII Aficionado
9,888 posts
Joined Oct 2002

Pacific Northwest
MORE INFO

IncompletePete wrote:
RFMSports wrote:
IncompletePete wrote:
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.

Sep 12, 2004 12:08

defordphoto | Celebrating the art of photography®
SD500, 10D, 20D, 30D, 5D, 1DMKII, 1DMKIII
www.ussbaracing.comexternal link | www.rfmsports.comexternal link | www.nwfjcc.comexternal link
An austere and pleasant poetry of the real. Ansel Adams

LOG IN TO REPLY

4,002 views & 0 likes for this thread
Best for sports photography?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras

NOT A MEMBER YET? CLICK HERE TO REGISTER TO THE FORUMS
Registered members get all the features: search, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, own reviews...




SEND FEEDBACK TO STAFF    •   JUMP TO FORUM    •   FORUM RULES    •   Index    •   New Posts    •   RTAT    •   "Best Of"    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: By using this site you agree that some cookies will be stored on your browser. For unlogged users we store one session id cookie. For registered members we store (in addition to login session cookie) only cookies that are essential for required functionality. We do not store any personal tracking data in cookies or other browsers' data storage methods.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.1version 1.1
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00122 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.01s
Latest registered member is fkissel2
596 guests, 496 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 3341, that happened on Dec 11, 2014