Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > Sports & Action Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 27, 2007, 9:17 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
airbrushjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 747
Default

first let me say i am sorry i haven't been on for awhile, i have been working alot, i really love my job, since i have been working for a local photographer, it has been alot of fun! i miss everyone here. work is starting to slow down for the holidays, so i will probably be on the site more! i hope all is well with everyone! john

i got to use my one of boss's 70-200mm lens, so you know i had to compare. at work we use 10d, 20d, and the 30d. and i am seriously thinking about moving to canon.

canon 30d 70-200mm 2.8
olympus E500 50-200mm 2.8-3.5

in all fairness all i did in photochop was
resize to post on this site. no noise reduction, no
sharpening. straight out of the camera. both set at iso 1600.
i used aperture mode, the canon stayed at 2.8. the oly
went from 2.8-3.5 at the the different focal lengths.
what i found was canon has superior noise control.
i wish i had more time with the canon, i am used to the olympus.
also i wish it was in day light, i hate night time games, and football!
soccer would have been better!

canon pics first







now olympus








airbrushjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Oct 29, 2007, 2:53 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Default

Cool to see youre getting paid to do what you love! I dont know, but it doesnt seem fair to compare the 2 systems, esp with nighttime football. I would just assume Canon would win outright, esp with high ISOs. One thing I notice is that the colors look more vivid with the Oly. Ive noticed that with even the Pro body Canons. In your Canon shots, the uniforms look almost purple where theyre blue with the Oly. Also, the reds look redder with the Oly. Is that in-camera settings? I tend to like a more saturated look personally soI like the color of the Oly better. BUT...the endless choice of lenses, low ISO noise, the ease with which colors can be manipulated via PP...the Canon's a no brainer for sports.
DRGSin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 29, 2007, 5:08 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
airbrushjohn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 747
Default

hi DRGSin,

yes i would agree canon has the crispness, hands down!! and yes i wish i could have used it at the track. the oly does have alot of settings in camera, i usually set my E500 at full sharpness, and about +1 on saturation +2 is a bit much. and it really gets me thatoly doesn't have better control over the noise, but the more i read and research oly will never really compete in sports. they just don't have the lenses for it, i believe their cameras are more for portraits, animals and landscapes, not that canon isn't i just think thats what they are striving for, and here's why, i read a review of the next up lens 90-250mm 2.8 and it didn't seem as positive as i would have liked, now thats a $5600 lens. and at 2.8 you would think this thing would just blow the reviewer away. here's the link in case you maybe interested,

http://www.e-fotografija.si/templates/?a=1060&z=93

now canon has the 70-200mm 2.8 with and without is. then the next lens up that i would be interested in is the 400mm 2.8 also about $5600.

so for now i am saving to get a 30d, i figure they will drop the price since the 40d is out, and its close to christmas, but we'll see.
airbrushjohn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 9:46 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 574
Default

Since youre thinking of starting anew...Have you consideredNikon? Theyve got the D300 coming out soon. Im not sure how the D200 compares with the 30d, someone may chime in, but D200 prices will be getting low also. I guess Im pimpin Nikon, huh? :G
DRGSin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2007, 12:42 PM   #5
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

DRGSin wrote:
Quote:
Since youre thinking of starting anew...Have you consideredNikon? Theyve got the D300 coming out soon. Im not sure how the D200 compares with the 30d, someone may chime in, but D200 prices will be getting low also. I guess Im pimpin Nikon, huh? :G
I think the D300 sounds like an awsome camera. The 200 is a great good-light camera but it's high ISO performance isn't so great (worse than the d80).

IF (big IF) the D300 lives up to it's billing it will be the top sports prosumer DSLR on the market. Bight right now we just don't know. In either case I wouldn't recommend the D200 if you're doing low-light work (awsome camera by all accounts for everything else though).

And by the way John, you're light by about $1000. The 400mm 2.8 sells for about $6500 new. But then you also need a 2nd body for the second lens (often 70-200 2.8)

If you do decide to go with Canon, the 40d does offer some very important benefits to the sports shooter - more cross-type sensors (all 9 are cross-type on the 30d only the center is cross-type) and by all reports better focus performance.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2007, 8:40 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Jobeye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 393
Default

Welcome Back,

I have heard some great things about the Canon 40D. 6.5 frames a sec. for one. I don't know about low lite tho.

I just spent a butt load of money for a Canon 300 2.8 and I love it.IMO Canon lens are about as good as its gets, something to thing about.

Nice job for shooting nite time football.

Shane
Jobeye is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:35 PM.