Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Best for sports photography?

 
IncompletePete
Senior Member
IncompletePete's Avatar
271 posts
Joined Aug 2004
UK
Sep 11, 2004 07:32 |  #1

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!


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
Sep 11, 2004 07:34 |  #2
banned

The 20D


Capturing life a fraction of a second at a time

LOG IN TO REPLY
Belmondo
Cream of the Crop
Belmondo's Avatar
42,735 posts
Joined Jul 2003
92210
Sep 11, 2004 08:36 |  #3

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.


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
Sep 11, 2004 11:39 |  #4

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. ?!


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
Persian-Rice
Goldmember
1,518 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Behind a viewfinder.
Sep 11, 2004 12:10 |  #5

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.



LOG IN TO REPLY
sGu
Goldmember
sGu's Avatar
2,372 posts
Joined May 2004
Manchester, UK
Sep 11, 2004 12:48 |  #6

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

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


Beautifully Ordinary | Gu Photography | Still + Motion Pictures
w. guphoto.co.uk
e gu@guphoto.co.uk

LOG IN TO REPLY
EXA1a
Member
242 posts
Joined Oct 2003
Sep 11, 2004 15:17 |  #7

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--




LOG IN TO REPLY
Danny ­ Boy
Senior Member
Danny Boy's Avatar
301 posts
Joined Jul 2004
Illinois, USA
Sep 11, 2004 15:37 |  #8

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




LOG IN TO REPLY
Andy_T
Compensating for his small ... sensor
9,860 posts
Joined Jan 2003
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Sep 11, 2004 15:51 |  #9

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


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
1,518 posts
Joined Apr 2004
Behind a viewfinder.
Sep 11, 2004 15:58 |  #10

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.



LOG IN TO REPLY
IncompletePete
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
IncompletePete's Avatar
271 posts
Joined Aug 2004
UK
Sep 12, 2004 10:18 |  #11

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!


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
defordphoto
MKIII Aficionado
9,888 posts
Joined Oct 2002
Pacific Northwest
Sep 12, 2004 10:24 |  #12

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.


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
Sep 12, 2004 10:26 |  #13

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.


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
271 posts
Joined Aug 2004
UK
Sep 12, 2004 10:28 |  #14

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?


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

LOG IN TO REPLY
defordphoto
MKIII Aficionado
9,888 posts
Joined Oct 2002
Pacific Northwest
Sep 12, 2004 12:08 |  #15

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.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

5,015 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, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00166 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.02s
Latest registered member is vertexsolution
814 guests, 432 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016