5D good for sports

Less telephoto reach? You've got 12 freakin megapixels. Use them and crop down.

I would think it would take a lot of practice to be able to get the ball contacting the bat or puck going through the cage line or a nose difference in a quarter horse finish with one shot ----and a lot of luck.

Jonathan Consiglio wrote in post #2419733
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.

Sorry, but there is a difference. The 20D has a higher pixel density and this does give a 'reach' advantage.

Assuming that you are too far away from the subject to fill the frame, and are going to have to crop the image regardless of body used, the 20D will give a larger image of the subject. If the subject measures 1000 x 500 pixels when shot on a 5D, it will measure (approx) 1250 x 625 pixels when shot on a 20D with the same lens.

angryhampster wrote in post #3179280
Less telephoto reach? You've got 12 freakin megapixels. Use them and crop down.

By the time you've cropped down to the FoV of a 20D/30D/350D you've got about 5 MP compared to their 8. Crop down to 8 and you're talking 1D II FoV.

First off, I am the least qualified to answer this seeing as how I've been a point-and=shoot man my whole life and have never touched a manual setting on a camera (unless it was by accident). Still, I've been very interested in getting into sports photography (particularly "American" football) and as a result, have done a fair amount of research the past week or so on how best to get my feet wet. While I've read a lot of different opinions, most people have said that if you're a hobbyist on a budget and can't exactly afford a $4k camera, a 20D/30D with a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L lens (either the IS or non-IS version) would be a good "beginners" setup. The consensus being that at least 5fps is needed to ensure the chances of a good shot.

Thanks everyone for their views and comments. Its an interesting one this full frame vs cropped sensor debate. Anyway i have ordered a Canon 5D body to replace my 10D,

regards Scott

mergino wrote in post #2403930
Is 3fps & less telephoto reach a problem?

I have found that the 5D for sports action is ok if it is outside and the light is optimal. For indoor sports......forget it.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=346713

Check out this thread. Here are some shots I made of very fast moving boats with the 5D. Like I said 5D and good light......no problem.

You can shoot sport with any camera that you want. It's just that some of them are obviously more suited to it than others. Probably the best for sport (at the moment, and only considering Canon) is the 1D mark II series. The mark III has even more potential once it's fully sorted and readily available. But unless you're in the fortunate position of having a number of bodies to choose from, you go with the camera you've got.

If the only body you have is a 5D it certainly doesn't preclude you from shooting sports. Very fast FPS is no guarantee of getting the perfect shot anyway. And as for lack of reach, just use a longer lens.

So... if you're thinking of buying a camera body specifically to shoot sport, the 5D isn't the best choice. Conversely, if you already have a 5D, there's no reason at all not to use it, you probably won't get as many "keepers" but you'll get enough.

cheers
Bill

If you have time to shoot, the results from the 5D are awesome. You can use a longer lens and get some great separation and bokeh. I use the 5D whenever I can. Some of my best selling photos were taken with the 5D and 135/f2.0, 300/f2.8, or 400/f2.8. Low light isn't a problem since it does well at ISO 3200.

If I'm using two cameras I'll put a long lens on the 5D and a shorter prime or zoom on the 1D MkIIn. That way I can have both cameras doing what they do best.

about 99% of all photographer need a actual 5D full frame making 8fps and a buffer for about 3 ( so about 25/30 jpeg/raw) seconds because all motions from people en animals are about 3 seconds.

cCnon will never make such a camara because they can stop the fectory then

vreeke wrote in post #3979903
about 99% of all photographer need a actual 5D full frame making 8fps and a buffer for about 3 ( so about 25/30 jpeg/raw) seconds because all motions from people en animals are about 3 seconds.

cCnon will never make such a camara because they can stop the fectory then

Uhhmm... yeah, OK, if you think so.

FretNoMore wrote in post #3980083
Uhhmm... yeah, OK, if you think so.

I hope you understood that!

taygull wrote in post #3981455
I hope you understood that!

...and I thought it was just me!

sctuk99 wrote in post #3497309
Anyway i have ordered a Canon 5D body to replace my 10D,

I started shooting sports with a digital camera.. an Olympus c2100uz and got great pics.. I had to learn how to pre empt the action and I was shooting a sport I have watched for 40 years..football.. or soccer for the people over there The UZI as it was known was great.. the first x10 optical zoom (i think) and f2.8 throughout ect

Then I got a canon 10d and a sigma 70-200. I was amazed at how fantastic a 10d was for sports.. I said to myself.. this camera will last me forever.. why would I need anything else... and for a few years with the 10d (and a second 10d) I did brilliantly..

Then i got the 1dmkII .. well as you can imagine.. in heaven.. used it for 6mths then had to send it away with a 300 lens to be calibrated... so I went back to using my 10d for a week or two.. it was like holding a toy camera. it was so slow and it was a nightmare to use. I hated every minute of trying to capture something with this poor excuse for a sports camera the 10d

How did I get from having a 10d that was the best camera I would ever need and would use it forever for sport... to having a 10d I hated using for sport.

It's all relative.. you didn't need to get rid of the 10d to do sports. I can look back and some of the pics I did with the 10d are as good as the ones I do now with the mkII.. The difference is that its more of a pleasure and easier now and I have become lazy because I dont have to work as hard to get the shot..

All the cameras mentioned above will beat the 10d... but once upon a time the 10d was the best sports camera. and your getting rid of it


PS little note on fps.. I use short bursts.. the difference between a players eyes open and shut is massive.. the people who say you should be able to get the shot in 1 ... well maybe. but can you one shot types get a player 30 yds away in a tackle with another player and shoot as he isn't blinking ?

Depending on what types of sports you are shooting and what glass you have the 5D may or may not present itself as a more challenging camera to shoot with. I started shooting indoor roller hockey with a 30D and found that the auto focus was just way to slow to keep up with the action under the lighting conditions.

Moving up to a Canon 1D MarkIIN made all the difference in the world and the 8.5 v. 5 fps actually comes in quite handy when you are shooting a burst of shots of a forward skating past the goalie and stuffing the puck behind him.

If I were looking for a reasonably priced sports camera I'd definitely consider the Canon 1D. It has fast AF, high fps, and a great image quality. Used they sell for about the same as a used 30D. The 'downside' to this camera if you really consider it a downside is that it is a 4mpix camera. Unless you are blowing up to poster size I really don't see this as an issue and would much rather have this older camera to shoot sports with than a new 40D, or 5D.