My 6D is a lot better sports camera than my 7d

OuttaCtrl wrote in post #16743046
I've owned a 6D and have seen other 6D's been used in motorsport. The issue I got and also the other guy is not about IQ, it is about keeper rate. I may get 2 out of 10 that are tack sharp while the other guy did a little better around 3-5. Keeper rates are what keeps us in business unlike portrait shooters.

Well speaking as a user of both cameras... The 6D's AF really isn't bad at all. In one shot I find the 6D to have more accurate AF than the 7D, however the 7D is more accurate for AI Servo/sports.
The biggest problem though is not the AF keeper rate, it's the pathetically slow 4.5 FPS rate of the 6D. If you're shooting a fast moving game like rugby, the perfect shot is just a split second. With 8 FPS the 7D gives you much higher odds of capturing the perfect split second.
Another thing is that the APS-C crop is incredibly useful for sports. To get similar reach as I do with my compact and fast 200mm 2.8, on the 6D I'd need a hugely expensive 300mm 2.8, a big heavy lens that needs a monopod.
I'm just waiting for a 7D Mark II that can produce usable results at ISO 6400 for night sports... but with a 2.8 lens ISO 1600 to 3200 is usually enough to maintain a shutter speed over 1/1000 in a bright stadium.

I'm an A's fan so that is OK.

It always amuses me when people have a camera (any camera) and cant see past basic facts, I am at various sports all the time and the 6D is probably the least used camera and there is a good reason why. Its a nice little entry level full frame, great for portraits landscape and low light. most serious sports people are not using entry level full frame cameras. The majority are using 1DX and 1DIV and nikon equivalents. 7D is a reasonable backup to these and maybe I see the odd 5DIII. 5DII and 6D Nah......

aladyforty wrote in post #16744083
The majority are using 1DX and 1DIV and nikon equivalents. 7D is a reasonable backup to these and maybe I see the odd 5DIII. 5DII and 6D Nah......

And the main reason for this is not even the autofocus system. It's the frame rate. Even the 5D3 is too slow and a worse choice than a 7D. The 7D is an entry level pro sports camera, anyone really serious will have a 1DX or 1D Mark IV and gigantic 2.8 tele glass.
The 6D is the perfect landscape camera, but it surely isn't a good fit for sports. It'll do sports but there are much better choices. You got to time your shots carefully with a camera as slow as a 6D, and as sports is so damn fast you will usually miss the right moment.

Mornnb wrote in post #16744096
And the main reason for this is not even the autofocus system. It's the frame rate. Even the 5D3 is too slow and a worse choice than a 7D. The 7D is an entry level pro sports camera, anyone really serious will have a 1DX or 1D Mark IV and gigantic 2.8 tele glass.
The 6D is the perfect landscape camera, but it surely isn't a good fit for sports. It'll do sports but there are much better choices. You got to time your shots carefully with a camera as slow as a 6D, and as sports is so damn fast you will usually miss the right moment.

agree 100%

Bakewell wrote in post #16743142
It's actually VERY good for sports. Number of "keepers" will be determined by the CORRECT use of the Custom Functions and the AI Servo AF system itself. Too many people believe a single point should be used for tracking and that will get you a ton of OOF shots.

sure, from threads I've seen in the sports section (and on FM) the 6D does a good job with inside sports like basketball

Mornnb wrote in post #16743931
...The biggest problem though is not the AF keeper rate, it's the pathetically slow 4.5 FPS rate of the 6D. If you're shooting a fast moving game like rugby, the perfect shot is just a split second. With 8 FPS the 7D gives you much higher odds of capturing the perfect split second...

I appreciate your perspective but I really had no issue with its fps. Example, if I can get 8 out 10 keepers in composition, at 4.5fps, that is if I even do burst mode, it is a lot better that blasting out 18 out 20 with photos that out of composition. Some folks say this should be done in PP but I'd rather do it one step ahead. Just a preference.

Bizarre thread indeed. I thought the whole point of the OP was the fact that a particular 3rd part lens worked better on a latest-model Canon than on an older model.

I'm not too surprised. My sig85 behaves much better on my 5DIII than my 7D or 5DII and not because of the 5DIII AF system. It could easily work a lot better on the 6D than my 7D and that would include moving subjects.

Just popped back in on the thread -- seems to me lot of the answers tend toward making the camera do the work instead of the photographer. Learn what your camera will do and won't do, and then set up your timing and shots to make that give you the images you want.

I've been shooting sports and wildlife for over fifteen years - with a 30D, a 28-135 and a 100-400 IS ... (indoors and outdoors) ... Everyone says buy 1D and expensive lenses - Canon sellers love to hear that ... I say, hogwash --

I believe the very high end sports guys do need that, and get paid enough to afford it -- the ones shooting the pros at the highest level of play, and it deserves it.

But that is NOT most of us -- most often, guys shoot at the amateur or semi-pro level, or college level, the high school level, and often the tournament level. And if you learn your equipment and your technique properly, you can use the equipment at a significantly less cost level than the "max outfit" ...

Know your sport, know your team strategy, know your players and what to expect. Don't stand behind home plate and expect to get a steal-shot at third with a fast runner on second, for example. Know the game ... understand the plays. Put yourself in the proper position ...

Know what's coming, and you won't have to shoot 25 fps and get ONE ... it's all about knowing what you expect -- if you miss a shot, you miss it, but if you prepare your self, you'll start to get a lot of keepers with a lot less work, and you won't spend an arm and a leg on equipment either.

When your skill level outshines your equipment, that's when it pays to move up -- an you'll know it when that happens ... but to buy expensive equipment to improve your images is wasting your money.

After all this time -- I finally upgraded to a 5DM3 and a 7D ... but it's because the level of my work now requires that level of production. The 30D simply won't produce images large enough - altho' it will "get the shots" ... Good luck to all of you regardless -- practice, practice, practice -- and even the shots of your kids playing will be "pro level" ...

monkey44 wrote in post #16746012
Just popped back in on the thread -- seems to me lot of the answers tend toward making the camera do the work instead of the photographer. Learn what your camera will do and won't do, and then set up your timing and shots to make that give you the images you want.

I've been shooting sports and wildlife for over fifteen years - with a 30D, a 28-135 and a 100-400 IS ... (indoors and outdoors) ... Everyone says buy 1D and expensive lenses - Canon sellers love to hear that ... I say, hogwash --

I believe the very high end sports guys do need that, and get paid enough to afford it -- the ones shooting the pros at the highest level of play, and it deserves it.

But that is NOT most of us -- most often, guys shoot at the amateur or semi-pro level, or college level, the high school level, and often the tournament level. And if you learn your equipment and your technique properly, you can use the equipment at a significantly less cost level than the "max outfit" ...

Know your sport, know your team strategy, know your players and what to expect. Don't stand behind home plate and expect to get a steal-shot at third with a fast runner on second, for example. Know the game ... understand the plays. Put yourself in the proper position ...

Know what's coming, and you won't have to shoot 25 fps and get ONE ... it's all about knowing what you expect -- if you miss a shot, you miss it, but if you prepare your self, you'll start to get a lot of keepers with a lot less work, and you won't spend an arm and a leg on equipment either.

When your skill level outshines your equipment, that's when it pays to move up -- an you'll know it when that happens ... but to buy expensive equipment to improve your images is wasting your money.

After all this time -- I finally upgraded to a 5DM3 and a 7D ... but it's because the level of my work now requires that level of production. The 30D simply won't produce images large enough - altho' it will "get the shots" ... Good luck to all of you regardless -- practice, practice, practice -- and even the shots of your kids playing will be "pro level" ...

That's all fine and good until you try to catch a rifle spinning in the air without blocking your daughter's face. More power to you if you want to try and time that perfectly but I'll take the higher fps.

monkey44 wrote in post #16746012
Know what's coming, and you won't have to shoot 25 fps and get ONE ...

Such a crazy idea to anticipate shots!!! I mean, who does that?

Charlie wrote in post #16746203
Such a crazy idea to anticipate shots!!! I mean, who does that?

Apparently some don't -- because I keep seeing guys that need as many fps as possible. You surely need 3 - 4 fps with action ... but I keep seeing guys wanting 8 fps 10 fps, etc. That leads me to believe those particular shooters are not understanding the action (sports) or the behavior (active wildlife) ... if you understand that, you don't need all that fps ... and a less expensive camera will not be necessary.

If you do not understand your subject - and therefore anticipate its movements - the action or behavior, even 25 fps will not help much. Not trying to berate anyone here, but it really helps a lot if you study the subject you want to shoot a little bit before you shoot it.

For example: If you know a specific breed of bird bobs its head three times before it takes off, you will anticipate that 'take off' and get some very nice on-the-wing shots ... Take off and landing shots give a lot more wing and head action than 'flying' ... Same thing in sports, if you know a specific runner has a lot of stolen bases, and is sitting on first with one out, the likelihood of him stealing second is very high. So, move to a position where you can shoot second base unobstructed (Know where the Ump will stand to make the call - it's nearly always the same spot behind the pitcher) so, move yourself so he's not between the base. Sometimes, you move only ten feet - but it means you get or miss the shot - no matter how many fps your camera will shoot. That's all I'm getting at --

monkey44 wrote in post #16746619
Apparently some don't -- because I keep seeing guys that need as many fps as possible. You surely need 3 - 4 fps with action ... but I keep seeing guys wanting 8 fps 10 fps, etc. That leads me to believe those particular shooters are not understanding the action (sports) or the behavior (active wildlife) ... if you understand that, you don't need all that fps ... and a less expensive camera will not be necessary.

Love people who speaks like a god of anticipation yet no link to their own work.

Talk's cheap.

kfreels wrote in post #16746121
That's all fine and good until you try to catch a rifle spinning in the air without blocking your daughter's face. More power to you if you want to try and time that perfectly but I'll take the higher fps.

Going by that logic, the 5DIII is hopeless at sports photography too. It does a whole 1.5 frame per second more than the 6D, but more than 50% LESS than the 1DX.