Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon EOS dSLR

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Mar 10, 2005, 1:12 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Hi folks -- please excuse the newbiest of rookie questions, as I have just joined this forum.

I'm contemplating upgrading from a Canon G2 to a Canon D20 -- most of the pictures I take revolves around sports, especially junior hockey in Canada.

I thank my monopod for anything remotely sharp in hockey arenas with the G2. In most buildings, I can get away with .jpg settings of 200 asa at [email protected], with obviously some post-game adjustment at home on the computer.

I'm guessing an obvious answer for a D20 lens would be a 70-200 f.28 but I'm not sure if I can afford both the 20D and a fast lens like that without the bride freaking.

It's been suggested that shooting in RAW mode would be best. What I'm wondering is -- does the 20D's fps rate deteriorate in RAW? The advertised 5 fps is one reason I'm making considering it over the DigReb.

Would working in the D20's RAW mode would allow me to employ a slower lens for hockey games? I assume it would be more forgiving for outdoor baseball and football day games.

Apologies if these are novice questions, but that's about my speed at the moment. But this hobby sure is fun, and digital allows me to learn on the job. (Ooops, THAT setting sure didn't work!)

Thanks in advance for any and all replies -- I just stumbled on this forum, and the people, information and tips are outstanding!!
maybo is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Mar 10, 2005, 2:13 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,396
Default

No change infps rate,the 20D does 5fps raw or jpg, with raw you get about 6 frames at 5fps before the buffer is full, at jpg high you get about 23 frames at 5fps before buffer full and you need to slow down for the camera to write out.

:blah:Point out the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 then offer to make concessions and settle for the cheaper 70-200 F2.8 :blah:
BTW: my negotiations techniques have me living in a dog house more often than not.


Peter.

PeterP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2005, 4:52 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Thanks for the info, Peter !

No need for further negotiation, if I mention the Sigma 120-300 F2.8. She'd just faint, and you'd likely hear the sound of her hitting the floor, seeing as you're just a few km's east of me !

Looks as if the fast lens is my only real option for shooting sports...

Cheers !
maybo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 10, 2005, 6:12 PM   #4
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

PeterP wrote:
Quote:
:blah: Point out the Sigma 120-300 F2.8 then offer to make concessions and settle for the cheaper 70-200 F2.8 :blah:
This one worked for me:
:? If I get the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 then I don't need a new camera... :?

:lol: :-) :G
NHL 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 2:51 PM.