Which camera for sports-daytime and low light??

If your budget is your main concern, which it is for most people. Than I would realy consider buying a used 40D and 3rd party 70-200f2.8. You could probally get both of them for around $1500 and have a great combo to start building with. The 40D and 50D are very very similar you cant go wrong with either. As far as Nikon goes the only thing I really know about them is the glass is usually more expensive and I really wish Canon would make a 200-400 f4 lens like the nikon version.

Canon 40d Amazon.com: Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera: Camera & Photo

sigma 70-200 f2.8 Amazon.com: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo

Thanks for your inputs. I'm hesitant to buy third party glasses and used bodies. Better wait, save and then buy brand. Canon does produce a 100-400 version L telezoom that is admired by many. I use the prime version of 400mm f/5.6L which produces astonishing results. I'm already habituated with non-IS glasses so, next item on my wish list is the non-IS version of 70-200 f/4L.

Perhaps u've noticed here, some members are as committed as Canon's paid employees (lucky Canon). Wish I could hire some unpaid but committed employees for my employer. :lmao:
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Canon does produce a 100-400 version L telezoom that is admired by many.
That's not entirely true. Many owners are only mildly satisfied or wish they would make a new mkII version soon. It's dated design is showing its age.

Perhaps u've noticed here, some members are as committed as Canon's paid employees (lucky Canon). Wish I could hire some unpaid but committed employees for my employer.
Well when someone comes in and makes unjustified and innacurate claims, it's only fair that someone straighten them out, right? :thumbup:
 
Perhaps u've noticed here, some members are as committed as Canon's paid employees (lucky Canon). Wish I could hire some unpaid but committed employees for my employer. :lmao:
Nope, I'm actually moving towards the Nikon camp. I just don't care for people who slander a product without any basis for the comments. You talk about how awful the 7D is and you've probably never bothered to shoot one. I don't own one as it doesn't suit my needs, but I've spent plenty of time with one and it's a very impressive camera.

If you're wanting to shoot action it's kind of silly to go with a 40D over a 7D because of some perceived flaw in the 7D's image quality. After all, action is about focusing and tracking... something the 7D does much better than either the 40D or 50D (and I've owned both).

If the 7D's IQ sucks so bad, how did the pictures I posted in the links above come to be?
 
Well when someone comes in and makes unjustified and innacurate claims, it's only fair that someone straighten them out, right? :thumbup:
Hehe.

I don't think reason will fix what ales him. ;)
 
There’s no chance for 7D to enter thru my gates. Why?

Because a crop sensor containing 18 MP is outright regretted.

Bottomline is; the buyer places his money where he thinks is appropriate. :greenpbl:
 
Because a crop sensor containing 18 MP is outright regretted.

The pixel density isn't the problem, IMO. It's just that Very high pixel density + class leading high ISO performance --> IQ at base ISO is not as good as it could have been. It's not optimized for low ISO shooting.

Here Juza explains how you more or less have to go out of your way to get good IQ out of the 7D:

http://www.juzaforum.com/forum-en/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13169

Which isn't necessarily a "bad" thing. It will certainly make you a better photographer.


I've had a D3S on order from Adorama for darn near 2 months now! :lol:

LOL... I had to wait more than 2 months for the TC-20E III. :thumbdown: :lol:


"As you might have guessed from product shortages, Nikon has been reducing inventories, too. The Imaging division's inventory at the end of the year was only about two-thirds the size it was two years ago. Nikon is running very lean at the moment." - Thom Hogan

http://www.bythom.com/
 
Bought the EOS 50D last evening. Tested it today. High ISO/low light shots are simply great to say the least. A hobbyist doesn't need anything more than this.

If the best is desired; only choices are Canon EOS 1D Mark IV or Nikon D3s.
 
Bought the EOS 50D last evening. Tested it today. High ISO/low light shots are simply great to say the least. A hobbyist doesn't need anything more than this.

If the best is desired; only choices are Canon EOS 1D Mark IV or Nikon D3s.

"simply great" maybe isn't the phrasing I would use. 3200 is a bit hit and miss. "usable" and "acceptable" come to mind, but it seems that for every one of these, there's at least one of these. The 7D looks to have a 1 to 1 & 1/2 stop better ISO performance than the 50D. (meaning you could get pretty clean from 3200 and "usable/acceptable" out of 6400). The 50D is a great camera, but make no mistake; its not as good in low light as the 7D.
 
"simply great" maybe isn't the phrasing I would use. 3200 is a bit hit and miss. "usable" and "acceptable" come to mind, but it seems that for every one of these, there's at least one of these.
+1

The D300S and 7D both top the 50D. If buying a crop body today and if I didn't have an investment in lenses with Canon already, I would go for the D300S for the AF system, dual card slots and weather sealing.

But both the D300S and 7D best the 50D... pretty much at every measurable point. And in the AF department, there's no contest. The 50D is way behind the D300S and 7D.

5-13-20102-50-38PM.png
 
EOS 50D is not a competitor against EOS 7D, same producer doesn't make contenders within its own range. Canon threw out 7D to challenge the D300s. However, the outcome was not as rosy as Canon expected. The Nikon gear outshines Canon in quite a few areas.

May be 7D performs well within 3200 - 6400 ISO range but, these are the ranges hobbyists seldom use. So, for these people gears like Nikon D90 or Canon 50D are good choices.

If I turned pro at this moment, as mentioned b4, I'd get both 1DMkIV and D3s. The Canon would be supported by EF 300mm and EF 400mm both f/2.8L IS USM versions and EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS USM II for wildlife and Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L II USM for landscapes. Don't have much idea about Nikon glasses however, would try to get simllar Nikon versions. Had Nikon lenses been price wise competitive, that would give Canon a real run for their money.
 
EOS 50D is not a competitor against EOS 7D, same producer doesn't make contenders within its own range. Canon threw out 7D to challenge the D300s. However, the outcome was not as rosy as Canon expected. The Nikon gear outshines Canon in quite a few areas.
You're the one who was comparing the 7D to the 50D and saying the 50D had better low light ISO performance and image quality. If you're in the market for a camera and you're looking at the 50D and the 7D, it is completely relevant to compare their features and performance.

May be 7D performs well within 3200 - 6400 ISO range but, these are the ranges hobbyists seldom use. So, for these people gears like Nikon D90 or Canon 50D are good choices.
According to who? Are you saying hobbyists don't shoot in low light and only shoots in well lit envrionments? Where are you getting your "facts"? I suspect you're making them up. A hobbyist most certainly can make use of better high ISO performance. You probably mean you don't think you can make use of better high ISO performance, but I suspect your opinion will change in the not too distant future.
 
According to who? Are you saying hobbyists don't shoot in low light and only shoots in well lit envrionments? Where are you getting your "facts"? I suspect you're making them up. A hobbyist most certainly can make use of better high ISO performance. You probably mean you don't think you can make use of better high ISO performance, but I suspect your opinion will change in the not too distant future.

The facts I got are from photographer friends shooting on weekends. We call them hobbyists, with myself being one of them. On the other hand professionals go shooting whenever necessary year round, sometime spending as long as one month in dense forests. We hobbyists know some of them but don't follow them (neither do we feel like as most of us have good jobs that we don't want to quit). 7D is neither a pro gear nor a hobbyist gear. Nevertheless, I would have gone for it had it contained exactly the same features as D300s. :sexywink:

A hobbyist shoots with consumer bodies and glasses. Therefore, this is what he can produce at best:
a%3E

4578195547_65bfe018fa.jpg



a%3E
 
Last edited:

Most reactions

Back
Top