1D2 to 7D for sports

I am considering a new body for shooting hockey. I already have a 1d2, 40D and 5d2. My objective is to get at least just one stop better then my 1d2 but have keeper rate stay the same. I actually have two 1d2's and I love them but shooting in the rinks at my sons hockey at above iso 800 is not the greatest. 1D focuses very good but I have a chance to buy a real nice 7D but would have to sell the 1d2's. Am I going to be disappointed with the 7D compared to the 1d2. They are old but they still take great pictures at iso 800. Is the 7D that much better at iso 1600 or 3200? Am I going to regret this? I have to decide today.

Here is a link to the album I post for the team. You can see the fstop and shutter on the side when you click on the image. Are they gonna get any better then this with the 7D? I just dont want to regret it later.

https://plus.google.co​m …839195095506094​492/albums

I wouldn't go to the 7D- have you considered the 1DIII instead? You'll get one full stop better ISO performance, MUCH better battery life, same ergonomics, and a terrific AF system.

adamo99 wrote in post #16647268
I wouldn't go to the 7D- have you considered the 1DIII instead? You'll get one full stop better ISO performance, MUCH better battery life, same ergonomics, and a terrific AF system.

Yeah, I am considering that also. Its a little more then i wanted to spend but it seems thats the route eventually. The 7D i was looking at is practically new. I just wanted to get some feedback from anyone who has gone from a 1 series to the 7d. My "gut" feeling is telling me its a wrong move. I am not going to do the 7d. I'll hold out for now.

I was in the same boat you are now a couple of years ago. I chose to get 7D instead of the the 1D3 because, in addition to using the camera for shooting hockey, it is also my main camera for recitals, vacation, etc. I do agree with Adam that the 1D3 will probably give you a better ISO performance than 7D but in term of AF, am not sure about that. In my opinion, the 7D AF is pretty awesome and also remember that it is newer than the 1D3.

Here is the link to some of the hockey photos that I took not too long ago. This rink (Ranger's training facility) was very nicely lit... usually, the rink my son plays, I have to push the ISO to 4000.

https://plus.google.co​m …lbums/596891009​1544720545

vilimo wrote in post #16647416
I was in the same boat you are now a couple of years ago. I chose to get 7D instead of the the 1D3 because, in addition to using the camera for shooting hockey, it is also my main camera for recitals, vacation, etc. I do agree with Adam that the 1D3 will probably give you a better ISO performance than 7D but in term of AF, am not sure about that. In my opinion, the 7D AF is pretty awesome and also remember that it is newer than the 1D3.

Here is the link to some of the hockey photos that I took not too long ago. This rink (Ranger's training facility) was very nicely lit... usually, the rink my son plays, I have to push the ISO to 4000.

https://plus.google.co​m …lbums/596891009​1544720545

Nice pics, i noticed most of your shutter speeds are below 1/500th. As your kids get older they get faster, you will be looking for more speed soon too! Lol.

adamo99 wrote in post #16647268
I wouldn't go to the 7D- have you considered the 1DIII instead? You'll get one full stop better ISO performance, MUCH better battery life, same ergonomics, and a terrific AF system.

This is the route that I would go as well. I had a 7d for quite a while and really liked it but found it lacking when it came to sports, especially in poorly lit gyms. I was going to keep the 7d and add and 1d3 but decided on selling the 7d and getting a 1dx instead. THAT was the ultimate upgrade! If it wasn't for the obvious difference in cost, I'd suggest going that route. Taking cost into consideration though, I determined that the 1d3 was really the better option (at least for me).

carloman wrote in post #16647459
Nice pics, i noticed most of your shutter speeds are below 1/500th. As your kids get older they get faster, you will be looking for more speed soon too! Lol.

I usually shoot at around 1/500 for the peewee/bantam age group...and for that I usually pushed to iso 4000. Given proper exposure and noise reduction in post processing, the outcome is quite good actually.

However, I do agree that the ultimate upgrade will be the 1Dx instead of the 1D3. Given the choices again today, I would choose 7D over 1D3 followed by the 5D3 and then 1Dx if money is not the constraint.

vilimo wrote in post #16647575
I usually shoot at around 1/500 for the peewee/bantam age group...and for that I usually pushed to iso 4000. Given proper exposure and noise reduction in post processing, the outcome is quite good actually.

However, I do agree that the ultimate upgrade will be the 1Dx instead of the 1D3. Given the choices again today, I would choose 7D over 1D3 followed by the 5D3 and then 1Dx if money is not the constraint.

I agree, noise reduction software is a must in the arenas. I have been playing around with DXO 9 and i must say that the 'prime' module works miracles. Give it a try, you will be impressed.

Had a mark 2 for about three weeks and went to a mark 3. The mark 3 make the 7D look like a toy camera. I have two 7D's and one mark3.

The truth and the bottom-line is that 1D-class have *no substitute*, especially if your photographic needs encompass the wide spectrum of choices and possibilities that such bodies are capable of offering. The truth (in my case) is that my current crop of 1D3's are not limiting my photographic skills, in almost ANY way.

Seems to me that it is when you get to a 1D-class body where you start wondering about better Optics (instead of bodies)... Mhmmm.... Can't get that EF 300mm f/2.8 L IS II out of my mind... Should I invest on the 1DX (or its coming successor) or... probably on the best pro/consumer lens currently manufactured on earth (I.M.H.O.)?



PIX

I was using only 1Ds mark II and it is terrific camera even so many years after they released, i didn´t like the button layout though, 7D is more user friendly in this aspect.

palad1n wrote in post #16649773
I was using only 1Ds mark II and it is terrific camera even so many years after they released, i didn´t like the button layout though, 7D is more user friendly in this aspect.

Most sports shooters are going to be shooting Av or Tv, both very easy to change on the fly with the 1DIII. The 1DIII went away from the two-touch menu system of the original 1D/Ds, and 1Ds/DsII, so more similar to the 7D controls.

Many folks shooting fast action, like motorsports, etc have moved to the 7D from the older gen 1D series. We have a few other older threads that I can try to dig up where they offered up their thoughts.

carloman wrote in post #16647401
Yeah, I am considering that also. Its a little more then i wanted to spend but it seems thats the route eventually. The 7D i was looking at is practically new. I just wanted to get some feedback from anyone who has gone from a 1 series to the 7d. My "gut" feeling is telling me its a wrong move. I am not going to do the 7d. I'll hold out for now.

I've never owned a 1D series. A good buddy of mine had a 1DII, sold it for a 7D and immediately sold the 7D and bought a 1DIII.

There really is no substitute and if you take your time you can find the 1DIII for about the same price as a 7D.

Fernando wrote in post #16649922
I've never owned a 1D series. A good buddy of mine had a 1DII, sold it for a 7D and immediately sold the 7D and bought a 1DIII.

There really is no substitute and if you take your time you can find the 1DIII for about the same price as a 7D.

There is a $300 price difference between similarly conditioned units. Depending on what you shoot, there could virtually be no difference between the 2 in the end results. For example, I obtained the same results shooting pro basketball between the two, AF and high ISO performance. The 1D3 was a bit sharper due to the less aggressive filter though, which made cleanup a bit a easier.