Camera for Sports

[allyv]

i use the 20d as the sutter lag is very short, but i've heard that if you've got the money the 1dm2n is the best choose the af is the best in the canon range. I use a 20d and i'm currently in a love affair, I was thinking of a 350d but i'm so glad i didn't the 3200 iso on the 20d is a god sent even at a high iso level noise is very not exsitant with a gd lens like a sigma 70-200 (i'm currently circleing my hand in my poket to get this lens) your ready to go. If you've got anything left i recomend a canon 85mm 1.8 :mrgreen: what a lens. Hope this helps ally

p.s pics with this set up can be found at http://community.dcmag.co.uk/photos/alistair_vannets_gallery/default.aspx

 

[Rob]

If you do go for a Canon 5d and fancy a wide angle lens then the Canon 10-22mm EF-S lens will not fit it.

The 10-22 is only for EF-S cameras which limits it to the rebel, rebel xt and 20D. As far as i know there are no other cameras that accept that lens.
I'm not sure about the Sigma 10-22 lens though - I've never seen that one.

I've posted an image taken with the 10-22mm on my Canon 20D on here before so check this thread to see it.

A good point - always check compatibility, some of the lenses are optimised for the APS-C sensor sizes and may not work at all with the 5D/1D. Here's some further stuff on super wides: http://shutterbug.com/equipmentreviews/lenses/0206indy/

Rob

 

[hot shot]

hey nice to have a fellow mountain biker (more of a free ride man my self but ya know) i use a 350d with a 28-135mm lense on it as most of my stuff is quite close range (mainly drop offs and jumps). if you want any detailed help give me a shout ill tell you what i can

Dom
www.modernpics.co.uk

 

[usayit]

For sports and someone who is an avid outdoorsman, I personally would rather recommend a 1d mark II with a fast set of CF cards and the fastest zoom you can afford (consider Sigma, Tamron, Tokina). IMO, Its ultra fast AF, 8.5 fps rate, and durable body should out weigh the benefits of the larger sensor. Should fit into a $5k budget... which I still consider crazy money.. but still doable.

 

[Soocom1]

OK, I am going to throw in my two cents worth, and I know I will get hit with this hard.....

Go Minolta.. The 5D and 7D both have the Anti-Shake INSIDE, so you can attach ANY lens you want and still get the image stablization. yes they are Sony as of now, but here is the big point. Cost, cost and oh I need to mention cost... By the way, most of the lenses can now be had for cheaper, and its a good rugged camera.

 

[DrewR]

For sports and someone who is an avid outdoorsman, I personally would rather recommend a 1d mark II with a fast set of CF cards and the fastest zoom you can afford (consider Sigma, Tamron, Tokina). IMO, Its ultra fast AF, 8.5 fps rate, and durable body should out weigh the benefits of the larger sensor. Should fit into a $5k budget... which I still consider crazy money.. but still doable.

I would seriously doubt I could get a couple of lenses, 1d mark II body, Lense filters, Flash, Tripod and a bag for less than $5k......

The 5d and 2 lenses (priced at $1100 and $1400) plus some other doo da's equalled up to be around $6k...

I would love to buy a 1d mark II- But wouldn't we all.....

OK, I am going to throw in my two cents worth, and I know I will get hit with this hard.....

Go Minolta.. The 5D and 7D both have the Anti-Shake INSIDE, so you can attach ANY lens you want and still get the image stablization. yes they are Sony as of now, but here is the big point. Cost, cost and oh I need to mention cost... By the way, most of the lenses can now be had for cheaper, and its a good rugged camera.

Hm....I would be a bit hesidant to buy one of these- I like the sounds of the low cost...But price buys quality in this world. (well...most of the time). I just havn't seen these being used by enough people to convince me....

About the Nikons.....Does anyone have any good feedback about them? I would be pritty interested in that 8mm fish eye (It has like 180 deg of view or something).....

I am also after some Lense filters...But that will all depend on the lense(s) i decide to use, yeah?

Basically...I want a Regular all purpose lense, A wide angle lense and a Telephoto lense; I'm leaning a bit more toward the Canon 20d body (Mainly too bring the cost down), But all of the professional photographersin photoshoots i have worked with all seem to use this body while shooting action shots....

Unless there is a Nikon body someone would strongly recommend i'm probably inclined to go with the 20d body.

I do still however need lenses. So as i said, I need a Regular lense for general all round' use, A wide angle lense and a Telephoto lense (However the Telephoto lense i Rob listed earlier is the one i have chosen.)

Thanks for the help so far guys;

-Drew.

 

[ajmall]

As far as I know the Nikon D200 has better image quality than the 20D. More pixels too so you can make slightly larger prints and capture a tad more detail. The 20D is also about a 18 months older than the D200 and that's a long time in DSLR terms. Now the 30D is out though you'll find the 20D at much more competitive prices. If Canon is what you want, go for the 30D, if Nikon then it's the D200.

 

[lostprophet]

I use a Canon EOS 1D mkII with 70-200mm F2.8 IS with and without a 2x converter for sports. The reason I went for the 1D MKII is that it will do 8.5 frames per second. Watch any pro sports photographer and they will take between 20 and 40 shots of one thing and keep the 1 winning shot. With most sports photography its all about getting the one perfect shot that sells.

Also the AI servo focussing is out of this world, I also use it for airshow photography where I can following a jet fighter travelling about 650mph.

I've done Motorbike speedway and rugby

just my 5 pence worth

 

[usayit]

I would seriously doubt I could get a couple of lenses, 1d mark II body, Lense filters, Flash, Tripod and a bag for less than $5k......

The 5d and 2 lenses (priced at $1100 and $1400) plus some other doo da's equalled up to be around $6k...

I would love to buy a 1d mark II- But wouldn't we all.....

I'm confused... Based on BHphoto prices, a new 5D is going for about $3300 and a new 1d mark IIn is going for 4000. The difference in cost is relatively small enough that you should still consider the 1d markIIn. I'm telling you the difference between 8.5 and 3.5 fps can determine whether or not you get that 1 perfect shot out of hundreds you shoot in a fast past situation like sports. Better AF, faster rate.. you won't miss the extra pixels and the larger sensor of the 5D.


Even my backup Elan IIe can do 3.5fps..... A bit off topic, I still have an old Canon A-1 with the power winder. Man that thing is fast 10 fps... I acquired as part of a camera swap deal. Can't imagine how quickly a 24 shot roll goes...

 

[markc]

Man that thing is fast 10 fps... I acquired as part of a camera swap deal. Can't imagine how quickly a 24 shot roll goes...

2.4 sec. 36 exp in 3.6 sec. Dang....

 

[DrewR]

For a grand more the 1d does look like a good option....But i really need a flash and at least 2 lenses for the moment....I may be able to break the 5k budget buy a bit...But getting lenses and flash and tripod for less than 5k-5.5k is going to be hard to do.....

With the 5d i can have a couple thousand to spend on lenses and accessories....

 

[hot shot]

im assuming that you plan to ride with your camera????
As i trided it with all my kit and i was sooo out of balance (2kgs of weight on your back makes a suprising diffrence) if i was you i would go for a light ish camera and lense set up in on hell of a tuff bag (crumpler IMHO). thats just my 2 pence worth hope it helps

 

[DocFrankenstein]

5D is not a capable sports camera. Not with 3 frames per second and 9 AF points.

If you want a good one get the 1DN. 8FPS and the best AF in the world at your service.