Reading mode: Light Dark

Is a 5D good for Sports Shooters?

Go to last post
G

gmiddleton

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
oakland/, CA, US
I see all the good and bad stuff coming out about the 5D. My question is would it be a significant upgrade for a sports shooter? I'm happy with my 20D, but the FF has my curiosity up. Thanks for any comments.
 
gmiddleton said:
I see all the good and bad stuff coming out about the 5D. My
question is would it be a significant upgrade for a sports shooter?
I'm happy with my 20D, but the FF has my curiosity up. Thanks for
any comments.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to change a 20D to a 5D for sports?

The pixel density is lower, so you would need larger zooms to get as close to the action, and the frame rate is lower, so although some of the guys who were shooting soccer with their pin-hole cameras always protest that you don't need high fps for sports, it sure doesn't do any harm either.

You could certainly shoot sports with the 5D, and the AF may be a touch better, but youa re better off with the 20D for that- or better yet, buy the 1DIIN, as sports is what it is designed for.
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment
 
It is not a sports shooters dream

3fps is slow for times where you want fast shooting

The AF while better than the 20D in tracking is still nowhere near the 1 series

The resolution is high but generally most sport shooters dont need it.

No weather sealing

Obviously the 1DMkII would be the best for sports right now

Can it be used of course but it is not a sprts shooters dream

--
Michael Salzlechner
http://www.PalmsWestPhoto.com
 
I'll bet it would be just fine for a great many sports and situations.
That said, if you are already spending $3200 for it why not go a few
hundred more and get the 1D2? That is Canons current best sports
body.

The only reason to get the 5D is if you intend to do other types of
photography that take advantage of it's FF.

--
Gregory Greene
http://wildcats.unh.edu/
 
Gregory Greene said:
The only reason to get the 5D is if you intend to do other types of
photography that take advantage of it's FF.
Click to expand...
Or if you want the sensor size of the 1D/1Ds without the weight and bulk. Personally, I won't buy a 1D* camera because of how obtrusive they are. Big bag, heavy in the bag, conspicuously visible to street subjects (and other street denizens), tough to handhold, etc. Simply doesn't work for my photography. Even at the kids' games, I don't want to have to keep 4lbs of camera and lens near eye-level so I can get the great kick. Monopod? It's a kid's game for goodness sake. I see other parents living out their sports dreams through their children. That's a pastime that is definitely not for me.

Actually, the 5D is still big for me. Most of my film photography "back in the day" was with a Leica M6TTL and a small number of primes (35mm f/1.4, 50mm f/2, 90mm f/2) and there's simply no way to be that unobtrusive with an EOS SLR. The 5D seems like it's found a new balance between image quality and size/bulk and my interest is piqued.

I can see myself buying a 5D or two when the 5D's replacement has forced the price down into my budget range. For the moment, I'll just 20D along...

Regards,
Ross
 
The 1D Mark II (new or used) is what you want for sports--nothing else comes close. I'm a landscape photographer who once owned a 1D Mark II (I've since rectified that). It's a great camera, but I never fully appreciated it until I took it to Spring Training in Arizona last March--the first time I held down the shutter release in continuous mode it fired off so many shot it actually frightened me.

Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
 
gmiddleton said:
I see all the good and bad stuff coming out about the 5D. My
question is would it be a significant upgrade for a sports shooter?
I'm happy with my 20D, but the FF has my curiosity up. Thanks for
any comments.
Click to expand...
You already have a 20D, which is 5fps. Why would you downgrade to a 3fps camera? 2fps might not sound like much of a difference, but when I went from a 10D (3fps) to a 20D (5fps) I noticed a significant difference. 3fps is practically useless for any fast-moving sport. You might as well be in single-shot drive at that speed. 5fps is the slowest usable continuous drive speed for sports, as far as I'm concerned.

Then again you might be one of the luddites who reminisces fondly of the days of manual focus and single-shot drive, in which case 3 vs. 5fps won't matter. I'm not so manly as to dismiss the virtues of a high frame rate and accurate AF.

And call me a pessimist, but I'm not going to put much stock into the 6 invisible AF points of the 5D until I read positive reviews of it from trusted sources. It might be a huge leap forward for AI Servo AF; who knows.

As a previous poster stated, if sports is your thing and you're looking at a $3300 outlay already, why not go ahead and get a 1D Mark II? There's very little not to like about that camera, except maybe for the heft.

-Yohan
 
rabagley said:
rabagley wrote:
Or if you want the sensor size of the 1D/1Ds without the weight and
bulk. Personally, I won't buy a 1D* camera because of how
obtrusive they are. Big bag, heavy in the bag, conspicuously
visible to street subjects (and other street denizens), tough to
handhold, etc.
Click to expand...
Everybody has their own priorities. I really don't mind the weight of my
1D2. I like the way it offsets the weight of the 2.8 zooms. Feels much
more balanced in my hands then the lighter bodies.

--
Gregory Greene
http://wildcats.unh.edu/
 
Buffer is bigger, that may help in some situations. fps is slower though and the shutter lag may be a bit longer than the 20d. But Canon hasn't published the shutter lag times. If shutter lag is too slow that may kill it for alot of sports applications.
 
gmiddleton said:
I see all the good and bad stuff coming out about the 5D. My
question is would it be a significant upgrade for a sports shooter?
I'm happy with my 20D, but the FF has my curiosity up. Thanks for
any comments.
Click to expand...
Not really, you do need a higher frame rate for sports. Timing is key but short bursts of higher speed is great to be able to select the best frame.

The 1D Mark II(n) is really the sports camera even if the 20D is quite useful too.
 
Yiannis
--

Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal. Won’t you sign up your name, we’d like to feel you’re αcceptable, respectable, presentable, a vegetable!
 
Well, you could certainly use a 5D to shoot sports, and the pix would look good, but that's the best you can say.

3fps is slow, and I don't know yet what the buffer flush times look like.

The FF would actually be a disadvantage a lot of the time, unless you have infinite funds for lenses -- I would rather have a 1.3 or 1.6X crop factor to make my long stuff act longer.

Not as rugged as the 1-series, and not weather-sealed, which may be an issue for some sports.

All in all, I'd go with a 1DMKII for sports. If funding is an issue, a 20D would probably be a better sports camera than a 5D.

--
Regards,
Paul
http://www.bangbangphoto.com
 
Team pictures, for example the extra res over the 1dmk2 or 20D for a football team pic with 45 players will make a difference. I took many swim team pics where there were 75 plus members, the extra res would have come in handy. Also, individual posed shots or small group shots (i.e. the running backs or linebackers group) would be perfect for posters with the 5D. In other words, yes if your subject is not moving and you need extra mp.
--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D and lots of typos
 
If you're the type of photographer who likes to shoot "still frame movies," then no, get a 1DII. However, if you can live with the 3fps, and time your shots, then yes. I have it on good authority that sports photos were actually shot before the advent of motor-driven AF cameras.

;-)
 
Unless you're in a sporting event where they're measuring how many fps you can fire. Or if the kind of sport you're shooting only generates good shots every 1/5th of a second. You know if the action you're shooting would have the best shots every 1/3rd of a second you'll never get the best shots with a camera that fires 5fps :-)
 
I would love to see Canon introduce a 5D sized 8FPS body. 1.3x sensor would be fine, same with 8MP. Pricing it under the 5D would be really appealing.

But I really doubt this would happen so guess I will keep shooting with the 20D.
 
need the 8.5 fps:

For example: 8 swimmers in the pool at once, 25 meter, all 8 cover the length of the pool in less than 15 seconds. Simple calculations: a little less than 2 seconds on each swimmer. In that 2 seconds you have get the right saleable shot--they could easily spend the 2 seconds under water, you have to move your lens, your camera has to acquire and focus, etc., all in that time period.

You need to do a 2-4 shot burst on every swimmer at the full 8.5 rate in order to have half a chance at geting a good pic of each swimmer. Do that with a 3 or even 5 fps camera. You might get 2 or 3 swimmers and lose revenue by not selling to the other 5 or 6.

And no, there were not people shooting events and selling pics to the participants such as this before the advent of higher fps cameras....

--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D and lots of typos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top