Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
Thread started 23 Dec 2013 (Monday) 12:03
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Sport Photography

 
Redo1
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Dec 23, 2013 12:03 |  #1

Hi,
I am an amateur photographer, but am lucky enough to travel with Olympic teams in my job. I only use a 7D with Sigma 70-200 2.8. Would upgrading to a 5D MK3 change my life? I don't mind spending the money if the change is worth it.
Thanks so much for your thoughts.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
30,261 posts
Gallery: 293 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 8736
Joined Dec 2006
     
Dec 23, 2013 12:07 |  #2

The 5D3 would perform better in lower light as it has much better high ISO performance. But your 70-200 would not be as long as it is now.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gobeatty
Senior Member
513 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2013
     
Dec 23, 2013 12:20 as a reply to  @ gonzogolf's post |  #3

What sport(s) do you photograph? Indoor, outdoor, if outdoor sometimes at night with just artificial light?

Also, what is your role as a photographer and where might your images end up (sports illustrated, ESPN, newsletters to Olympic athletes, your family album?).

I'm asking as much out of fun curiosity as trying to help you :-)

5D3 is amazing. The camera you have is no slouch. Will be interesting to read your and others' replies.


6D | 35 f2 | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 28 - 135 f3.5 - 5.6 | 70-210 f4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,951 posts
Gallery: 2058 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12517
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Dec 23, 2013 12:50 |  #4

Redo1 wrote in post #16549198 (external link)
Hi,
I am an amateur photographer, but am lucky enough to travel with Olympic teams in my job. I only use a 7D with Sigma 70-200 2.8. Would upgrading to a 5D MK3 change my life? I don't mind spending the money if the change is worth it.
Thanks so much for your thoughts.

Heya,

Nope. You want to probably stick with a good crop for the reach. Instead of buying a $3500 camera, you'd do better having a secondary lens, like a 400L.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,256 posts
Likes: 86
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Dec 23, 2013 13:09 |  #5

Yeah, I'd stick with the 7D, too...

And possibly put some of the money saved into lenses.

I don't have personal experience with Sigma 70-200/2.8... but if it's not the OS version, you might consider an upgrade... or to one of the Canon with IS.

If you sometimes find yourself coming up short, add a 1.4X teleconverter to use with the 70-200. Or get a 300/4L IS (also useful with a 1.4X).

It's less frequently possible to use, but a wider lens can be fun to use for sports, too... Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS would be a great choice (and is much more affordable, smaller/lighter than a 24-70/2.8, which doesn't have IS unless you go to a third party lens)... Or go really wide with a Canon EF-S 10-22mm or if you shoot a lot indoors/available light, Tokina 11-16/2.8.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Redo1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Dec 23, 2013 13:27 |  #6


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Thanks for the info. Here are the kind of images I like to take. Really just for personal use.
Most of the work I will be doing in the next 2 months is with Halfpipe ski and this is done mostly at night but also some daytime.



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,951 posts
Gallery: 2058 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 12517
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Dec 23, 2013 13:35 |  #7

Heya,

Definitely stay with the 7D. You want lenses to keep up with that action. Wide aperture, long reach. If you have money to burn, look at the longer focal lengths with wide aperture. You'll need high ISO either way.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Gobeatty
Senior Member
513 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2013
     
Dec 23, 2013 13:41 as a reply to  @ MalVeauX's post |  #8

Looks like you are doing great. If these shots are typical (?) and you are at the extent of lens reach with your crop camera, then switching to FF would not offer benefit unless you are not close to reach distance and could make similar shots without cropping on FF. This may be stretching to spend money for no reason - your shots look great, keep it up :-)


6D | 35 f2 | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 28 - 135 f3.5 - 5.6 | 70-210 f4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 23, 2013 13:49 |  #9

FF will offer better image quality. The 7D will be better if you are severely focal length limited and have to crop. If you do moderate cropping, the 5D Mark III will have better noise and sharper images SOOC. Also, the 5D Mark III RAW files will stand up to more editing. This is my experience shooting with both bodies since they were released. The 7D is good, but the 5D is better - even when I have to crop.YMMV.


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
palad1n
Goldmember
Avatar
1,823 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2787
Joined Jun 2013
     
Dec 23, 2013 14:30 |  #10

i would stay with 7D, 5D mark III has slightly better overall IQ on higher ISO, but this is compensated by better reach and pixel density in the center of the frame. I would save some money for better lenses instead, which have bigger impact on IQ.


Website (online) : www.lukaskrasa.com (external link)
Flickr : http://www.flickr.com/​photos/105393908@N03/ (external link)
Facebook page: https://www.facebook.c​om/lukaskrasaphoto/ (external link)
Instagram: https://instagram.com/​lukaskrasacom (external link)
Lukas

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jase1125
Goldmember
Avatar
3,027 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 82
Joined May 2010
Location: Lewisville, TX (DFW)
     
Dec 23, 2013 17:38 |  #11

palad1n wrote in post #16549466 (external link)
i would stay with 7D, 5D mark III has slightly better overall IQ on higher ISO, but this is compensated by better reach and pixel density in the center of the frame. I would save some money for better lenses instead, which have bigger impact on IQ.

I disagree on the slightly comment. In my experience the difference is significant once you get past ISO 1600 considering luminance and color noise with sharpening. The 5D3 just holds up much better when combining noise reduction along with sharpening. The 7D is no slouch, but along with IQ the AF is significantly better. OP one thing to consider is you will not get much money for your 7D. I would add a 5D3 as it compliments the 7D nicely.


Jason

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DC ­ Fan
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,881 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 50
Joined Oct 2005
     
Dec 23, 2013 17:43 |  #12

Redo1 wrote in post #16549198 (external link)
Hi,
I am an amateur photographer, but am lucky enough to travel with Olympic teams in my job. I only use a 7D with Sigma 70-200 2.8. Would upgrading to a 5D MK3 change my life? I don't mind spending the money if the change is worth it.
Thanks so much for your thoughts.

The upgrade will change your life if the 5D Mk. III contains neural implants that will improve your technique or guide you to the correct place to capture action.

Otherwise, it's just another camera.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jhayesvw
Cream of the Crop
7,230 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Likes: 270
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Tucson AZ
     
Dec 23, 2013 22:49 |  #13

Don't forget the 5d3 has 2 less fps than the 7d so if you spray and pray
you'll need to change your technique.
The 5d3 is great but if the sigma is older you would be better off with a
new Canon 70-200 2.8 IS2. The AF is crazy fast and the IS is amazing.

Also, the lens won't lose much value over a few years.



My Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
39,172 posts
Gallery: 116 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 7662
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Dec 23, 2013 22:56 |  #14

I have shoot both extensively now for our local nba team, and I prefer the 5d3. Much less overall time in processing, and images are just easier to clean up with iso 6400 and 12800. I still have a handful of images where the 5d didn't quite track with players, but I saw that with the 7d as well.

IMAGE: http://gerberphotos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20132014-/i-sdcBmC8/0/X2/5P1B5377-X2.jpg

IMAGE: http://gerberphotos.smugmug.com/Sports-Events/Mad-Ants-20132014-/i-b462zKC/0/X2/5P1B5420-X2.jpg

With the 5D3, I gain at least one stop ISO, and this allows for more flexibility with shutter speeds, etc.

This was with the 7D, but I had to shoot it at 6400.
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Sports/Mad-Ants-Mar-21-2013/i-Vxp2TZ9/0/X2/IMG_1202-X2.jpg

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Redo1
THREAD ­ STARTER
Hatchling
3 posts
Joined Dec 2013
     
Dec 24, 2013 13:50 |  #15

Thanks for the great information! I feel comfortable proceeding with investing in better lens's rather than the body for now. Later on perhaps moving up into the FF.
Thanks again.

I will start with a 1.4X teleconverter. Is there one that is better than the other? I have the Sigma OS 70-200 2.8 so should I stick with the Sigma teleconverter ($250) or the Canon ($450)? And finally would the 2.0X be better than the 1.4X?

Thanks again




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,737 views & 0 likes for this thread
Sport Photography
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EOS Digital Cameras 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jgt6
866 guests, 189 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.