frustrated 30D user wants to upgrade

I currently have a 30D with good glass. Frustrated with lack of fast focussing or fps. Lots of blown shots of sports. Thought about 50d then got interested in 1DM3. What are the pros/cons to making that jump, other than price.
Primarily will use new body for sports (kids), tennis, wakeboarding, indoor basketball, soccer. Want to know if the jump to next body is worth the $, knowing that I don't make my living on photos, just a great (expensive) hobby.

Thanks in advance!!!

fatcat2000 wrote in post #7947048
I currently have a 30D with good glass. Frustrated with lack of fast focussing or fps. Lots of blown shots of sports. Thought about 50d then got interested in 1DM3. What are the pros/cons to making that jump, other than price.
Primarily will use new body for sports (kids), tennis, wakeboarding, indoor basketball, soccer. Want to know if the jump to next body is worth the $, knowing that I don't make my living on photos, just a great (expensive) hobby.

Thanks in advance!!!

I think that based on what you are shooting primarily (sports) you are going to constantly be disappointed with your 30D's ability to gain and maintain focus on moving subjects. I know that I certainly was.

Even children' sports require a better AF system than what is supplied on the XXD series cameras to me. I went to a 1D Mk I as my budget is pretty tight, but could not be happier with the switch. My son's soccer photos or even just photos of them riding their bikes on the street are tack sharp and crystal clear. The keeper rate that I have at this point using AI Servo tracking is night and day different to what I was getting with the same lenses on my older 30D.

I would suspect that you would be well served by a 1D MK II or a Mk III and would be giddy with the results compared to what you are seeing presently. Downside is more expensive batteries and a lot more weight in your camera body. Everything else (the important things) is all upside.

p.s. - You mention wakeboarding which means potential for water on your camera to me. With that being the case the 1-series would be nice due to the pro level weather sealing. You get your 1D wet on the boat one day, not a biggie at all.

It honestly sounds like the problem may be in your technique and not the camera, and a new camera may or may not fix that problem. Can you tell us what settings you are using and post a couple problem photos?

50D AI Servo is a ton better with the 30D imo, but the 1d mkII or III will destroy both of them. Which lenses do you have? Will they all work on the 1d?

I shot highschool sports for a long time with the 30D, and I was extremely dissatisfied with its focusing performance in low light. I ugraded to the Mark IIn, and couldn't be happier (other than with a Mark III). The autofocus is worlds apart, and I've loved the bigger sensor for everything else I shoot too. I shot with a gripped 30D, so the weight difference is marginal, and I much prefer the 1D batteries and the weather sealing, I've shot in downpours many times and never had a single problem.

I use a 30D and have never experienced any AF speed problems that were traced to back to the camera body. Probably need some faster glass?

And faster fps is no guarantee you will get that "perfect" action shot. I shoot F1, MotoGP, BSB etc and always shoot in one-shot mode. It's important to understand the dynamics of the particular sport you are shooting and then you'll find you seem to have masses of time - because you know where and when the action will peak and have got there before it happens.

I have no problem with my 30D in these areas.

It's not "spray and pray" or FPS that make the 1D series cameras better at capturing action, its a completely SUPERIOR auto focus system that Canon has yet to trickle down to the XXD or 5D cameras at this point. Focusing speed and accuracy is going to be greatly improved with a move to a 1-series, for sure. No question about it.

There may be people that are certainly pleased with how their XXD's perform, but that does not mean the 1-series are not overall a better AF product. The 1-series cameras have separate processors set aside just for the AF system alone. Let alone the customization that is available with regards to the components of the focusing system on a 1D.

Rob Galbraith broached the subject in his review of the 1D Mk III of whether or not a 40D would be an acceptable replacement for sports shooting for a 1D and here are some his comments - keep in mind this is regarding a 40D....probably a faster focusing camera than the 30D....

"With an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS or EF 500mm f/4L IS lens attached, the EOS 40D produces an unacceptably low percentage of properly focused or even usably focused frames of track events, soccer, rugby, football and basketball in our testing. Even as a secondary body - for instance, acting as the short telephoto camera when the action comes too close for a long lens - the camera's AF falls short. At best, we've seen it get about half the photos in a sequence in focus, while for grab-and-shoot photography it has missed the focus on more frames than it has gotten right."

or

"We don't plan on doing a full-blown analysis of this camera's AF capabilities. But, we have done more than enough shooting, using cameras and lenses that were calibrated and otherwise operating properly, to say that the EOS 40D is not a viable sports camera. A midrange digital SLR with a midrange price tag probably can't be expected to offer the same autofocus performance as the company's best. Even taking that into account, though, the 40D doesn't fare well. It's not that it can't do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it's that it can't do the job really at all."

I could do it with 30D no problem, I can do it better, easier faster with 50D no comparison.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. I too shot with a gripped 30D and had no camera-related, (only self-induced) focus issues at all. Before picking up the 30D, I'd heard it was probably a good 'entry-level' sports body. And heck, I didn't even have GOOD glass!

Hopefully my 50D will be a good upgrade, but won't know 'til basketball season rolls around.

dave

Can't do the job at all? I don't agree at all. Would I love to have a 1D body? Hell yes! But, for the shooting I do, the 40d is more than fast enough with the focus and fps. Have I missed some shots because of the focus? Yes. But, I think this has more to do with user error than the equipment. To say that the 40d "can't do the job at all" is simply not true, regardless of the reported testing. When I use center point & AI servo, and point the camera in the right place I can track soccer players just fine. Again, I would love a 1D body, but I will never accept any report that includes a blanket statement like that one.

IMO
Corey

I had a 30D and made the jump to the 1D Mark III. Do it. Don't look back.

ISO 6400, both shots

The first one is 200mm, 1/160 sec in an orchestra pit

The 30D is a great camera

its AF is not a reason its so great however..

if you're thinking of a 50D, you might want to wait till the end of the year, the next xxD is supposedly coming and is getting a new AF system derived from the 1D...

The 30D can be used yes, I manage alright...sometimes...​Birds can still be a PITA

wayovrpar wrote in post #7951170
To say that the 40d "can't do the job at all" is simply not true, regardless of the reported testing.

I don't understand. Are you disagreeing with the notion that the 40D can't do some of the things the OP wants or that it can't do it all? If the former, then you must agree that the 30D falls or could fall short of what the OP's wants (at least in part). If the latter, then you ae sadly mistaken. Your assessment, regardless of "regardless of the reported testing" as you said, is in conflect with hundreds if not thousands of pros. "regardless of the reported testing", do you really think your assessment is better, more accurate, than the pros?

bauerman wrote in post #7950938
It's not "spray and pray" or FPS that make the 1D series cameras better at capturing action, its a completely SUPERIOR auto focus system that Canon has yet to trickle down to the XXD or 5D cameras at this point. Focusing speed and accuracy is going to be greatly improved with a move to a 1-series, for sure. No question about it.

There may be people that are certainly pleased with how their XXD's perform, but that does not mean the 1-series are not overall a better AF product. The 1-series cameras have separate processors set aside just for the AF system alone. Let alone the customization that is available with regards to the components of the focusing system on a 1D.

Rob Galbraith broached the subject in his review of the 1D Mk III of whether or not a 40D would be an acceptable replacement for sports shooting for a 1D and here are some his comments - keep in mind this is regarding a 40D....probably a faster focusing camera than the 30D....

"With an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS or EF 500mm f/4L IS lens attached, the EOS 40D produces an unacceptably low percentage of properly focused or even usably focused frames of track events, soccer, rugby, football and basketball in our testing. Even as a secondary body - for instance, acting as the short telephoto camera when the action comes too close for a long lens - the camera's AF falls short. At best, we've seen it get about half the photos in a sequence in focus, while for grab-and-shoot photography it has missed the focus on more frames than it has gotten right."

or

"We don't plan on doing a full-blown analysis of this camera's AF capabilities. But, we have done more than enough shooting, using cameras and lenses that were calibrated and otherwise operating properly, to say that the EOS 40D is not a viable sports camera. A midrange digital SLR with a midrange price tag probably can't be expected to offer the same autofocus performance as the company's best. Even taking that into account, though, the 40D doesn't fare well. It's not that it can't do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it's that it can't do the job really at all."

I take what Rob Galbraith says with a grain of salt. Sometimes he seems to make some sense and other times like this, well not so much. No the 40D's AF is not as good as a 1 series camera but to say it can't do the job at all is just foolish.