Steve'sDigicams

jschoenr · Oct 17, 2008, 4:50 PM

I've been sports shooting for just about 1 year now using my Canon XT and I'm finally at the point where I have to upgrade. I'm not ready for the 1D price point, but could possibly swing the 5DII, if there was a considerable reason for the additional cost. I typically shoot a lot of indoor sports (volleyball, basketball), but am rapidly expanding to outdoor and want to get into nighttime football and soccer. So, the 25,00 ISO on the 5DII seems very appealing.

I've had the 40D on my list for quite a while, but want to also consider these new bodies as well..

So, thoughts on the differences for a sports shooter? Are they both too new to consider? I'm definitely stuck with Canon, so I don't want to start a Nikon vs. Canon :P battle here.

JohnG · Oct 17, 2008, 7:27 PM

If you're going to stick with Canon then I'd advise the 50d - a good savings over the 5d. Presumably the 50d has as good or better high ISO as the mkIII which is good enough for your purposes. The 6.3 fps vs. 3.9 fps will also make the 50d a better sports camera. Besides if you want to get into nighttime football and soccer you're going to have to save as much money as possible for longer 2.8 lenses. Trying to shoot nighttime soccer with only a 70-200 2.8 will be very frustrating. So, save money on the body and save up for a sigma 120-300 2.8 or better yet a canon 300mm 2.8.

peripatetic · Oct 18, 2008, 2:56 AM

Something you might want to consider is that there are currently a lot of 1DMkII and even 1DMkIII cameras available used at fairly reasonable prices.

Probably far more durable and much better for sports than any of the cameras you have selected.

JohnG · Oct 18, 2008, 6:08 AM

peripatetic wrote:

Quote:

Something you might want to consider is that there are currently a lot of 1DMkII

Except the high ISO part. That's the trade-off. Focus wise the mkIIs are great. But 30d, 40d, 50d all have better high ISO performance. That will make an impact for the sports the OP wants to shoot. Lighting at High Schools sucks :G.

jschoenr · Oct 18, 2008, 5:02 PM

Thanks for the comments. Definitely the high ISO is the biggest draw for me. I don't think I can justify 2x cost for that extra stop from 12,800 to 25,600 (which I probably wouldn't use anyway).

John, I also agree with you about the equipment. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is barely acceptable for daytime soccer (only get decent shots for about 1/4 of the field).

I've gone ahead and ordered a 50D. I'll post some comments after I have a chance to use it a bit.

thanks!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Oct 17, 2008, 4:50 PM	#1
jschoenr Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apex, NC Posts: 218	I've been sports shooting for just about 1 year now using my Canon XT and I'm finally at the point where I have to upgrade. I'm not ready for the 1D price point, but could possibly swing the 5DII, if there was a considerable reason for the additional cost. I typically shoot a lot of indoor sports (volleyball, basketball), but am rapidly expanding to outdoor and want to get into nighttime football and soccer. So, the 25,00 ISO on the 5DII seems very appealing. I've had the 40D on my list for quite a while, but want to also consider these new bodies as well.. So, thoughts on the differences for a sports shooter? Are they both too new to consider? I'm definitely stuck with Canon, so I don't want to start a Nikon vs. Canon :P battle here.

Oct 17, 2008, 7:27 PM	#2
JohnG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2004 Posts: 8,529	If you're going to stick with Canon then I'd advise the 50d - a good savings over the 5d. Presumably the 50d has as good or better high ISO as the mkIII which is good enough for your purposes. The 6.3 fps vs. 3.9 fps will also make the 50d a better sports camera. Besides if you want to get into nighttime football and soccer you're going to have to save as much money as possible for longer 2.8 lenses. Trying to shoot nighttime soccer with only a 70-200 2.8 will be very frustrating. So, save money on the body and save up for a sigma 120-300 2.8 or better yet a canon 300mm 2.8.

Oct 18, 2008, 2:56 AM	#3
peripatetic Super Moderator Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,599	Something you might want to consider is that there are currently a lot of 1DMkII and even 1DMkIII cameras available used at fairly reasonable prices. Probably far more durable and much better for sports than any of the cameras you have selected.

Oct 18, 2008, 5:02 PM	#5
jschoenr Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Apex, NC Posts: 218	Thanks for the comments. Definitely the high ISO is the biggest draw for me. I don't think I can justify 2x cost for that extra stop from 12,800 to 25,600 (which I probably wouldn't use anyway). John, I also agree with you about the equipment. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is barely acceptable for daytime soccer (only get decent shots for about 1/4 of the field). I've gone ahead and ordered a 50D. I'll post some comments after I have a chance to use it a bit. thanks!