40D or XSI for shooting football under the lights

I'm looking for some advice on whether I'd be better with an XSI or 40D for shooting football under the lights. Or is it more or a lense decision? I'm looking at one of these bodies and possible the Canon 300M F4 lense. Any advice or suggestions? The quality of the stadium lights vary. I think the XSI's ISO only goes to 1600, but I'm not sure. I've shot a lot of football with film SLRs but I'm new to digital SLRs. This is about the maximum that my budget will allow at this time. I will also use this equipment for wildlife (birds) photography.

Last season I was shooting HS football with a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 @1600iso on a 20D. Even with this set up the fields are almost to dark that I needed to add a little "kick" with flash. So from my experence a f4 lens is not going to be fast enough to be shooting night football in HS stadiums. he company I work for the issed lens is a 28-200 f3.5-5.6 so all my other photographers are stuck with using flash 100% of time. If you go with the f4 you will need to use a flash also. The 40D has a faster frame rate (6.5 compared to 3.5) for shooting sports. The XSi is a 12.2 and the 40D is a 10.1. The rebels are considered more the entry level camera and the 40D more in the intermeadite level. I would suggest spending more to get faster glass.

I guess I should mention that the two stadiums I would shoot in primarily have lighting comparable to a small division one college. I still fear the problem you pose NVCameraman.

40D is a more robust body, brighter bigger viewfinder, probably better focusing, better balanced with big lenses on it.

If you are not on the sidelines, 200mm is kind of short - but if you get a 70-200, I would get the 2.8L and a monopod. If you go longer, your options are limited.

I shoot a lot of sports using the 40D & 30D. Between the XSI and 40D go with the 40D. The AF is superior to the XSI and that will be something that you will need to rely upon. FPS is also faster which is helpful and I do bump to 3200 ISO depending on the field that I am shooting on.

I don't shoot high school. Just NAIA and NCAA Big 12 from the sidelines. If the lighting is comparable to some of the NAIA fields I shoot the 300 F4 will not do the job. You would be pushing it in a lot of NCAA fields. You need at least an f2.8 lens. The Canon or Sigma 70-200 f2.8 will do nicely on the sidelines. Keep in mind that you will have to walk the sidelines a bit with that lens. But if you do so you can get most of the action. Just maybe not the angles at times that you would like to get.

Obviously the 400 f2.8 I shoot makes it easier for me not to move much. But I always have the 70-200 f2.8 on a second body for when the action gets close.

As for using a flash. A lot of venues will not allow flash at all. I never have one on me for field sports. It can disrupt the players and officials and that is not what you want to do. I have seen more than one person tossed for using a flash.

If you are shooting from the stands, unless you can afford the 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8 the 70-200 is still the way to go. You need that fast glass for low light. Just get as close to the field as you can. Flash from the stands is useless so leave it home.

Keep in mind that shooting sports is a demanding form of photography. With a little bit of planning and some practice it can get very addictive. Good luck

gryphonslair99 and elader:

Thanks for your advice. I've actually shot hundreds of night football games. IT's usually been with the 200 range length that you guys are suggesting. I guess I was hoping for some Digital miracles with the f4 speed lens. (And I guess I am addicted to it gryphonslair99!) I'm usually limited to some nice sideline shots with some good shorter lenses that I own. The main team that I shoot only plays one daytime game a season and I have a cheap 400 mm that I use then. I just find that a bit long. I thought the 300 mm would be ideal.

All three of you seem to be solid on 40D as the camera body of choice. There doesn't seem to be an inexpensive 300mm f2.8?

If I did this for a living I would be shooting 1D MIII's. As this is just a serious hobby, I shoot the 40 and 30 instead and put my money into glass. Sorry, no suggestions for an inexpensive 300 or 400 in the f2.8 range. If there was, maybe I would be shooting a couple of 1D MIII's.

O.K., now, would I be best advised to look for used equipment. Is the D40 a better choice than the D30? Is it realistic to find a used Canon 70-200 IS zoom? I'm thinking of going for that lens with a 1.4 teleconverter.

I think you mean 40D and 30D.

The benefit of the 40D is a bit faster frame rate, couple more megapixels, Digic III processor, etc. Personally, if you can afford the 40D I would get it, but both are solid performers and a if you found a good price on a 30D it is worth picking up.

As for the lens. You can find a 70-200 f/2.8 IS used but not a lot of people sell these. You will find a non-IS f/2.8 first, usually for about 900 to 1000 used. These are more readily for sale as people often start with this lens and move up to the IS version. If you want to save some money, consider the non-IS as the IS won't help steady action at all anyway.

As for the TC, the 1.4 works great on the 70-200 series lenses. Just remember you will lose some speed, your f/2.8 is now an f/4. This could matter when shooting at night.

If you are looking to shoot football under the lights you can skip the IS as well and save a bit of money there. IS will not stop action and is pretty much useless for sports. If you have use for IS for other things then that is different. My 70-200 f2.8 does not have IS as I do not have enough need for it.

The one advantage I notice between my 40D & 30D that matters the most to me is that the 40D seems to focus a bit faster than the 30D. I have no data to prove it, just how it seems from my experience.

Why not take a look at Sigma 120-300mm f2.8? Pair it with 40d, a used 1dmk2N would be better but more money.

id say get the 40d for faster fram rate and faster AF and the 70-200 f/2.8 non IS. You don't need IS ofr sports at all pretty much.

Yeah, what Bobbyz said.
Mike

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

Go for the 40D (faster and more accurate focus + more FPS). And as said before... better balanced with Bigger Lenses. The ISO 3200 can be a life saver (in some cases)!
The 2MP extra res.... is no advantage (in 99% of the time)!

Thanks everyone for the great advice. Is the Sigma lens a 2.8 all the way out to 300 mm? Also, would I be advised to get the IS on the canon 70-200 for photographing wildlife (birds?). Thanks!