amfoto1 wrote in post #16365320
First of all, I would not recommend someone wanting to shoot sports jump to a full frame model. In order to get the same telephoto "reach" with FF, you will need to spend a lot more on lenses and your kit will be larger and heavier. The 6D is sort of like a FF 60D, with a less capable AF system and without the articulated LCD of the crop model. Plus for 8x10s you don't need FF at all. In your position, I wouldn't even consider a FF model.
The lack of reach without getting more costly is pushing me away from FF at this point.
I do not know the T3's high ISO performance and you don't indicate what ISOs you have run into trouble with... But you can reliably use any of the 18MP models (T3i, T4i, T5i, 60D, 7D) to ISO 1600 and even 3200 with minimal work. Especially if you are rarely printing larger than 8x10. The 70D has a new sensor and might offer even nicer high ISO performance... Canon says so, but I'm still in wait and see mode, personally.
at 1600 and 3200 there is a good amount of noise on the T3. I'm thinking about renting a 70D to test it for myself in low light and see how it really does.
You can use even higher ISOs, by applying noise reduction in post-processing. There have been significant advances in softwares the past few years, allowing for higher ISO shots. Look for Teamspeed's posts here on POTN about using 7D at very high ISOs for examples and recommendations. The same techniques should apply to any of the 18MP cameras (don't know about the new sensor in the 70D yet).
Thanks I will have to look into that and see what they have to say.
7D is the most advanced of the current models... largest buffer for fast shooting, sophisticated and customizeable AF system. It's also got the highest durability rating of any of the Canon APS-C cameras and relatively good sealing against dust and moisture.
All good points I'm just not liking the compact flash memory system since for years I have only used SD cards. I'm hoping for a 7D2 to be all the 7D is and more with SD card memory. But we'll have to wait and see if and when that comes to light.
The 70D comes close and has some features the 7D doesn't. But 70D is more of an upgrade from 60D, with some 7D features added. In particular, the AF system of 70D is very similar to 7D's, but slightly downgraded. And it doesn't offer the 7D's build level of sealing and durability or 100% viewfinder. But it does offer an articulated LCD screen, which the 7D doesn't. 70D also has a newer, more sophisticated form of focus Micro Adjust than 7D (60D doesn't have MA at all).
I'm leaning towards the 70D currently, I don't think I will miss some of the features the 7D has over the 70D for the AF system, the articulated LCD could be nice to have. I'm not too worried about the 70D not having the 100% viewfinder since I have never had a camera with that so it's not something I would really miss not having. The Micro Adjust on the 70D is something I really think would come in handy.
The 60D's 9-point AF system is perfectly capable of action photography, too. It's a solid step up from your T3's AF. In fact, the T4i and T5i models have essentially the same AF system as the 60D, so should be able to keep up, too.
I haven't given the T4i or the T5i models much thought, I've been kinda set on going past anything from the rebel series to the next level. Not really sure why but I just haven't even considered any of them.
High frame rate is a crutch you want to avoid using too much, unless you have a ton of memory cards and enjoy sitting in front of your computer for days on end editing your photos. Learn to time your shots well, rather than relying too heavily on "machine gun" shooting techniques. 7D has the highest frame rate, but 60d and 70D are pretty respectible, too.
I'm more looking at the higher frame rate as a way to avoid missing something because I took 2-3 shots and my T3 is "busy" writing the pictures to the memory card and it causes me to miss the opportunity for another good shot I could of had. For example I try to get a picture of a tackle and the miss the tackle and the camera is busy and a second later when the next player is actually getting the tackle I don't get that shot due to the camera being busy writing the last shots to the card. Seems like the 60D and 70D would suit me fine in this aspect as would the 7D.
The way I most often use the 8 FPS my pair of 7Ds are capable of is with short, 2 or 3 image bursts. Usually this is with running subjects where a "freeze frame" of the wrong part of a stride can look odd or awkward, and it's near impossible to time. This is sort of like shooting a gun using a "double tap" or "triple tap" technique. You end up trashing a lot more images this way, but increase the odds of stopping the action at a point in the person's or animal's stride that looks "right".
That is about what I try to do myself.
Besides, 7D will actually slow down the frame rate at times, to allow time for metering or AF, or with certain settings. To get a 7D to fairly consistently shoot at it's max frame rate, you have to use M (manual) exposure mode and keep some other features turned off. Plus there really isn't all that big difference between 5, 6 and 8 FPS.
That's part of my thinking to where the 60D or70D would work just fine for my current needs and possible future needs. But leaning towards the 70D due to it being better with Video than the 60D and hoping for better high ISO performance too.
I would encourage you to spend as little as possible on the camera body.... you also sorely need to upgrade lenses and those will ultimately offer more improvement in image quality, as well as support faster, more accurate AF, better sealing and durability.
I am working on upgrading both body and glass.
You should look at the Canon 70-200s, especially. This will be a huge improvement over the 75-300 you have. Some will tell you that you don't need IS for sports photography, but after using IS lenses for 12 years I can tell you it's a very valuable feature on telephoto lenses, especially when they are used on crop cameras. If a 70-200/2.8 IS Mark II is too expensive, look for a used Mark I or consider a 70-200/4 IS. They are both excellent lenses, too. They can be used very effectively with a quality 1.4X, too, if you need a bit more reach.
I have been looking at the 70-200 F4 without IS as I don't feel for sports I will need it due to the high frame rates I shoot at.
Besides a "workhorse" 70-200, it's your choice what other lenses to get. I use a 24-70/2.8 and a couple 28-135 IS. The Canon 17-55/2.8 IS is another excellent lens. An inexpensive choice is the Tamron 17-50/2.8 non-VC.... except it doesn't have USM style focus (which Tamron calls USD), so is rather slow focusing. The Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS is in between in price and has HSM, which is the Siggy version of USM, to give AF speed and accuracy similar to the Canon.
Lens wise as I said above I've been looking at the Canon 70-200 F4 non IS and I've been looking at Tokina 11-16mm F/2.8 for city shooting. Canon 40mm f/2.8 Pancake, or the Canon 50mm 1.4, I can't decide which would be more useful or if I would have a use for both. The Sigma 17-50 2.8 you mentioned above.
There are numerous other short zooms, but most are f3.5-5.6 variable aperture, so are going to be less useful in low light situations. Instead you might consider some faster prime lenses, such as the Canon 28/1.8, 35/2 IS and 50/1.4 (all with USM) or the Sigma 30/1.4 HSM (tho it's said to not be so great focusing in low light). A prime lens can give you one or two stops more light than any zoom offers, yet can cost less and is smaller/lighter, too boot. Of course, a prime isn't as convenient as a zoom in some respects.
I find the primes useful for shooting indoors like birthday parties, holidays, or for the kids Wrestling. But with football I feel I would either end up having to crop the pictures a lot or be to close to the action to get a decent shot.
Note that with very wide and ultrawide lenses you may not need a large aperture lens because you can handhold them steady at slower shutter speeds. Often an f4 or f3.5-5.6 will do fine, in a 10-xx or 12-xx zoom.
If I didn't get the Tonkia I would probably get the Canon 10-20mm since it seems to take great pictures.
You also might want a longer telephoto for sports. I use the Canon 300/4 IS a lot, both with and without a 1.4X teleconverter. It's easily handheld and a nice focal length on a crop camera for field sports. There is also the Canon 400/5.6, but it might be a bit long some of the time and doesn't have IS, though it's reasonably compact and handholdable. There are also a number of zooms in the 100-400, 120-400, etc. range.
I've thought about the 1.4X converter to add to the 70-200 if I could get the wife on board with the costs of that plus a f2.8 70-200