Possible Canon convert

Hello,
First post! Very excited
So, I am contemplating the possible *addition* of Canon equipment to my camera gear mainly as a long-lens, sports package, but I have some questions:

1) What makes Canon Auto Focus so much better than Nikon for sports shooting? Is it the lens choice really and all bodies are created equal?

2) I plan to shoot the gammut of daylight beach volleyball to indoor court volleyball. Does the XTi (or later XSi) handle ISO noise like a champ (meaning would it be something I have to worry about)?

3) 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/4 non-IS and a good monopod (and extra cash saved)? MTF charts according to photozone.de have IS off the charts, but only for pixel-peepers?

Thanks everyone...glad to be here!

First of all what is your current gear line up?

Well, right now I have a Nikon D300 + some AF-D lenses.
Honestly, I am looking at Canon to add as a second body to use ONLY for sports and use the Nikon for portraits, etc. I hate changing lenses
PLUS, the 700-200 f/4 is every Nikon user's wet dream. Perfect zoom range, constant aperture...pro-build quality. Only think like it w/ nikon is the 70-200 2.8 VR which costs more that I need

welcome...as far as AF for sports i would recommend sticking with a 1-series. especially in low light. that is what they are known for. the xti will handle high iso noise just fine, but your af speed may be a little lacking. (any canon will do fine with high iso, as opposed to n*k*n). i personally have the 70-200 f/4 non-is and LOVE it. ver fast focusing and sharp as a tack. i dont think twice about shooting that lens wide open. i know it will produce sharp images, especially on my 1d. ideally i would suggest finding a used 1d MK II if you want more resolution than the 1D has to offer, however, i love my 1d, and dont need 8 or 10 MP to produce wonderful images.

here is an example of the 1d with 70-200 (iso 1250) under crappy light....

Dmab wrote in post #5181302
Well, right now I have a Nikon D300 + some AF-D lenses.
Honestly, I am looking at Canon to add as a second body to use ONLY for sports and use the Nikon for portraits, etc. I hate changing lenses
PLUS, the 700-200 f/4 is every Nikon user's wet dream. Perfect zoom range, constant aperture...pro-build quality. Only think like it w/ nikon is the 70-200 2.8 VR which costs more that I need

to add fuel to the fire...consider dropping the d300 for a 5d for portrature

wernersl wrote in post #5181317
welcome...as far as AF for sports i would recommend sticking with a 1-series. especially in low light. that is what they are known for. the xti will handle high iso noise just fine, but your af speed may be a little lacking. (any canon will do fine with high iso, as opposed to n*k*n). i personally have the 70-200 f/4 non-is and LOVE it. ver fast focusing and sharp as a tack. i dont think twice about shooting that lens wide open. i know it will produce sharp images, especially on my 1d. ideally i would suggest finding a used 1d MK II if you want more resolution than the 1D has to offer, however, i love my 1d, and dont need 8 or 10 MP to produce wonderful images.

Thanks for the feedback -- with Nikon's AF-S lenses, the camera focus motor is not used in favor of the motor built in to the lens -- is this the same methodology for Canon's USM?

canon's af motors are only in the lenses. all electronically controlled through the contacts on the body/lens. no motor in the camera body.

Dan, I converted to Canon about 2 yrs ago when Nikon had nothing that compared to the MKIIn's. I have played with the D300 and D3 and I wood have to say they are both nice cams. The D300 focus was on par with my MKIIn, I have been waiting to upgrade to the MKIII but been holding off just to make sure all the issues are fixed. I just got done shooting the NCAA Regionals Mens Basketball in Tampa where the SI shooter was using a Nikon D3 and D300 and after chatting with him he said the D300 with grip is alot of camera and the weight was just right. And if you did not need full frame why spend the extra $$$. Also have a friend that shoots for the local AP and he shoots everything with the D300. If I did not have the investment in lenses I would have considered switching back my self.

Dmab wrote in post #5181302
I hate changing lenses

With another D300 you won't need to. A Rebel series camera is certainly a step or two down from the D300.

Your feet are already in the Nikon camp. Its about lenses. I would say get another D300 and a long lens.

But since the 5D is about the price of the D300. I would say get the 5D for portraits and get a long lens for the d300.

wernersl wrote in post #5181324
to add fuel to the fire...consider dropping the d300 for a 5d for portrature

Oh hells yeah. The 5D for portraits is a DREAM.

Although this is my 1st post, I've read enough through these forums to have learned a thing or two about Canons. I'm contemplating my own Canon DSLR purchase, but I'm waiting on some comprehensive reviews on the 450D before I make my decision.

As to your questions, I can't really say anything about the quality of Canon vs. Nikon AF capabilities. All I know is that the focusing motors are lens based as well as the image stabilization (e.g. VR from Nikkors). I imagine more qualfied ppl will let you know about Canon AF, but I expect you won't be disappointed

As to the body specifically, you may want to consider getting a 30D/40D (40D preferably) for sports. From what I've compared and read, the xxD series tend to have better high ISO management. Furthermore, they can be extended to 3200, while the xxxD series only maxes out at 1600. The xxD series also has a much faster fps, which is something that some sports photographers require.

For the lenses, the 70-200 f/4 non-IS is a very sharp lens. The IQ b/w that lens and the rest of it's 70-200L brethren are very close; sometimes it's too close to discern which one of the 4 lenses is the penultimate winner since YMMV. Read through the various pages in the lenses section to get an idea of the quality you can get.

in this case, i'de say against switching to canon unless you go all out. having split equipment means you need to think twice as much when editing photos (different color and curve responses will be annoying), and even more when adding more lenses. the canon telephotos all pack a bigger punch for their price than the nikon ones (more or less equivalent but significantly cheaper), and canon bodies do have great noise profiles at high iso. however, the d300 should be on par with a X0D in terms of noise and servo focusing. in any case, as someone else mentioned, 5d is better for portraits simply because it's full frame (and iso100 is smoother than a baby's bottom, as you will see if you take one of those shots with a 5d )

2) I plan to shoot the gammut of daylight beach volleyball to indoor court volleyball.

3) 70-200 f/4 IS or 70-200 f/4 non-IS and a good monopod (and extra cash saved)? MTF charts according to photozone.de have IS off the charts, but only for pixel-peepers?

Just some food for thought. Most of the indoor court volleyball that I have shot had very mediocre to lousy lighting. Even with ISO around the 3200 level, an F4 lens would have produced photos you would not be happy with. 6400 ISO maybe. Every situation is different, and some indoor venues are lit up like the sun, but generally, in most of the world, F4 will not cut it indoors for sports. Flash is a different story.

Ok. sounds like I really need to rethink my strategy. All great points for pro and cons, the biggest being kidpower's f/4 argument for indoor sports.

Thanks everyone, highly valuable info that probably saved me from a fatal wallet emptying purchase!