5D good for sports

I have the 20D, 5D, and the 1DMark IIn.

Honestly I would tnot ake my 5D last when shooting sports. It is just too slow and won't focus fast enough.

With sports speed is everything......as said above the 1DMark IIn would be the best choice. If it were me I'd buy 2 used 20Ds before I'd buy a 5D. This would give me the option of having backups as well as when the buffer hits you can quickly switch cameras.

You would also have the option of having two lenses ready to shoot.

Also the 5D is full frame. I found when I shoot sports it is better to have the 1.6x crop to give you more zoom... Also I think the 20D or 30D would be the better option as they are both 5fps (I think)

20D auto focusing is NOT GOOD ENOUGH for serious sports photographer.5D a bit better performance and I mean a BIT. Get the EOS-1 series.Also get the WEATHER SEALED body(yet again EOS-1 series).

I MUCH rather take a 20D / 30D as my "sports camera"

More tele and faster FPS, you said it urself. If you want the 5D, then whats another $1000 for a 1 series camera for sports.

sasa007 wrote in post #2417611
20D auto focusing is NOT GOOD ENOUGH for serious sports photographer.

That's quite untrue.


I do wish someone could let me borrow their 5D for one of UCLA's game, and i'd show it would work.
Obviously if I had a choice, I'd take a 1DMKII over anything else, but the notion that other stuff won't work, especially if it doesn' t have 5FPS or more, is absurd.

BTW, anyone who shoots NBA games with strobes cannot use the motordrive.Yes, even with a 1DMKII

grego wrote in post #2419070
That's quite untrue.


I do wish someone could let me borrow their 5D for one of UCLA's game, and i'd show it would work.
Obviously if I had a choice, I'd take a 1DMKII over anything else, but the notion that other stuff won't work, especially if it doesn' t have 5FPS or more, is absurd.

BTW, anyone who shoots NBA games with strobes cannot use the motordrive.Yes, even with a 1DMKII

Yea I have to agree... I can't see anything wrong with the 20D for sports

Let me put it like this... the AF and the FPS of the 1D bodies just help a bit with some technical aspects of sports photography - in a way it takes a better photographer to use simpler equipment - but of course it doesn't replace more important things like anticipation, timing, knowing your subject. A good sports photographer will take better sports pictures with a 20D/30D than a beginner will with a 1D Mark II. With good technique and anticipation you can overcome problems with the "slow" AF of the 20D/30D. Of course the 1D AF is much, much better but at least for me it primarily helps to mask my poor ability to keep the AF sensor solidly on the right target.

Just one quick thought, 8.5 fps or even 10 like the 1V has is usless when the perfect moment happens between frames. Somehow people managed to make great images with fullframe film before crop bodies and they also shot 1 frame at a time before the motor drive was invented.


I have my MkII bodies limited to 4fps through the ersonal funtions, but shoot sports in the "one shot" drive mode most of the time. I'd rather not have to edit through any more pictures than I have to so I can get them transmitted just that much faster.

I think the 30D is better than the 5D for sports because of the crop and 5FPS.

A high frame rate is not absolutely necessary, you still have to get the timing right. It really does help to use short bursts though, you increase the chance of getting a nice shot when you have a few to choose from, the frame where the most elements are in good positions, where eyes are open etc.

I've tried the 5D in sports situations, fastpitch softball and highschool football. The frame rate wasn't that bad if you have good timing. The difference for me, is the MK11n's better, faster more accurate AF. Plus the weather sealed body...and I did enjoy the faster FPS, but very seldom if ever shot in the 8 FPS.

I have both the 20D and 5D. WHen I shoot anything sports, the 5D is in my hand, and the 20 is in my bag, with a second shooter or with a second lens ready to go, but rarely does! The 5D is more than enough. It will definitely work.

Now, there's really no more reach with a 20 over a 5. All you are really getting is a cutout of the full image. We just had a confusing thread on this the other day! With the resolution of the 5D you won't lose anything. What you'll gain is image quality.

All things being equal, print 2 8x10's. Now, cut about 1 1/2 inches off of each side (this is in no way exact!). Now hold them side by sie. What you have is a crop where both subjects are the same size, one is just on less paper (or pixels). Just hold these cameras up to your eye and you'll see through the viewfinder what I mean. The 5D's view is much broader, that's all.

When you view the same shot from each camera on your monitor, shot's from the 20D appear closer because the monitor is filling the screen with the image. Does that make any sense?

I'll find that thread and post a link.. Someone reworded my ramblings and clarified nicely! The point is, don't look at focal length as a determining factor... There is no difference.

sportsphoto's are about visual moments, 8fps is good for analysing this, Mark II using jpg. still is great and therefore mark III is a waste.

vreeke wrote in post #3178681
sportsphoto's are about visual moments, 8fps is good for analysing this, Mark II using jpg. still is great and therefore mark III is a waste.

Mark III a waste...hmmmmmm got to disagree on that.

vreeke wrote in post #3178681
sportsphoto's are about visual moments, 8fps is good for analysing this, Mark II using jpg. still is great and therefore mark III is a waste.

I think basically every single sports photographer would disagree with that last sentence.