Camera or lens....

I've recently started doing more sport shooting and I find myself missing a lot of shoots, some no doubt due to my lack of experience but none the less I do feel that the 5d2 tracking abilities leave much to be desired....
Another problem I've encountered is not having anything longer then 200m, and thou I thought about getting a 1.4 teleconverter I'm not that keen on having a 280mm f5.6, so naturally I thought of the f2.8 mk2 which from what I've heard should give me better tracking and IS and obviously 280mm f4 without much loss of IQ or focusing speed.
So mow I'm faced with a decision (how I hate those) whether I should upgrade my camera or my lens
What do you think will help me photograph better?
Thanks for any comments and suggestions

Maybe get a 7D. You'll get some more reach and a modern AF system.

Yup..... What Mike said.

+2 for a 7D.

If your sport shooting is daytime good light stuff, you can pick up 1d mark 2 for small money. Great tracking and great image quality if 8mp is enough and you don't need high ISO

I guess that a second body would be a good idea
To be honest I'd rather have just 1 body but it does solves all of my problems
Thank you for your suggestions

I'm looking at both the 7d and 1d3 as they can both be had at around 1k, and I'm not sure which is the better camera for me, it's been a long time since I used a 10mp camera and that wasn't a dslr so just wanna know if I'll see a big downgrade in IQ from my 5d2 and also how does the 1d3 compares to the 7D in IQ and ISO performance?
I believe that the 1d3 is the better sports camera and it'll sure be nice to have that 10fps
Any input will be welcome

I was shooting motorsport last weekend, had no issues with the 5D2, and the 70-200 IS II.
Nice, sharp pictures.

Here is one:

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the 5d2 cant be used to shoot sports
I just think that it's harder due to it's focusing system and low fps
Out of curiosity what's your average keeper rate when shooting motorsport?

eyalha wrote in post #16124333
Don't get me wrong I'm not saying the 5d2 cant be used to shoot sports
I just think that it's harder due to it's focusing system and low fps
Out of curiosity what's your average keeper rate when shooting motorsport?

Well, that is an interesting question...
I actually never really calculated it.

This weekend I made 499 pictures, from those around 20 where out of focus.
Mainly because of reflections. (When the sun is suddenly and heavily reflected from the windscreen of the car, the camera (all of them) thends to loose focus.)

I kept 210 of the 499 photos, but not because the others where not sharp, but because the composition was not good. So I would say around 40%

I too would pick up the 7D first for sports. While 5.6 may not be ideal, if you were to add a 1.4 TC (Used Kenko for $130?) you are effectively more than doubling (with the crop camera) your FOV from what you are using today. That's decent reach should you shoot something where you would need it.

eyalha wrote in post #16124333
I just think that it's harder due to it's focusing system and low fps

I used to photograph motor racing with my Nikon F cameras. These are film cameras and I did not have a motorized film advance. Auto focus did not exist in those days. I had absolutely no problem making a series of shots in rapid succession while advancing the film manually between shots AND changing the focus between shots while following the action with the camera.

Every other sports photographer in the day had roughly the same type of equipment available and I don't recall a shortage of good sports photographs being published.

In other words, I would not blame the camera for not being up to the job.

eyalha wrote in post #16124298
I'm looking at both the 7d and 1d3 as they can both be had at around 1k, and I'm not sure which is the better camera for me, it's been a long time since I used a 10mp camera and that wasn't a dslr so just wanna know if I'll see a big downgrade in IQ from my 5d2 and also how does the 1d3 compares to the 7D in IQ and ISO performance?
I believe that the 1d3 is the better sports camera and it'll sure be nice to have that 10fps
Any input will be welcome

If you crop your 5D2 down alot, then the lower resolution of the 1D3 should be sufficient. The 7D yields the best options for cropability. and its AF is very good as well.

The 1D3 is sharper than the 7D in rendoring detail, if you look 100% to 100%, but resize the 7D down or resize the 1D3 up, and the results are very, very similar. The 1D3 focuses better in low light than the 7D, and up through ISO 6400 is better with ISO management. At 6400, the two become very close, and the 7D goes to 12800 for those emergency situations. There are some settings in both camera, and post processing (software tools and techniques) that can be leveraged to really help the 7D results.

If you would like some reviews I have made between various cameras like the 7D, 5D2, and 1D3, please click my mini-reviews link in my signature. If others want to cast doubt on the 7D, I offer some samples up for you to decide if this will get the job done or not.

12800

SkipD wrote in post #16124578
I used to photograph motor racing with my Nikon F cameras. These are film cameras and I did not have a motorized film advance. Auto focus did not exist in those days. I had absolutely no problem making a series of shots in rapid succession while advancing the film manually between shots AND changing the focus between shots while following the action with the camera.

Every other sports photographer in the day had roughly the same type of equipment available and I don't recall a shortage of good sports photographs being published.

In other words, I would not blame the camera for not being up to the job.

Which is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't change the fact that what is said is correct. Given the same photographer, the 7D is going to make it easier to get keepers than a 5DII when it comes to sports. Better AF and faster FPS as he said.

Would you say that it was easier the way you did it then or easier now given a camera like a 7D for those same sports photographs you shot on your Nikon back in the day?

It always cracks me up when people go back to comments like "well 30 years ago we were taking great photos with XXX cameras so there is no reason that XXX camera today won't work just fine" Yes people were taking amazing photos 30,40,50 etc years ago as well. Today's cameras just make it a lot easier especially cameras that are geared towards sports shooters.

carpenter wrote in post #16125084
Would you say that it was easier the way you did it then or easier now given a camera like a 7D for those same spots photographs you shot on your Nikon back in the day?

Actually, with the exception of having to manually advance the film between shots, I think it was easier without any of the automation choices to worry about.

I had so much practice with manual focusing that it was totally natural to do it under all conditions including during a rapid-fire sequence of shots. Of course, today's autofocus lenses aren't nearly as good for manual focusing as the old Nikkor lenses and today's viewfinder screens aren't as good for manual focusing as the (easily interchangeable) ones for the Nikon F cameras.