Reading mode: Light Dark

Is a 5D good for Sports Shooters?

Go to last post
No it's not. Sometimes I think non-sports shooters don't realize that a camera which gives you the ability to shoot 8.5 fps does not mean you shoot 8.5 fps. And yep, in the good ole days it was manual focus and single shot....in the good ole days 50 mph won the Indianapolis 500 as well.
--
Steve Mitchell
http://www.dphoto.us
http://www.musicpix.net
 
No question, some need the speed. But that doesn't mean that a 3fps camera cannot be used to shoot sports. You can shoot sports with no motor drive, if necessary. Part of catching good sports shots is to anticipate the action, and then react.
 
for general sports shots 1 fps works too, but the odds of getting the "right" shot increase with each fps added, no human can react fast enough when the action is moving to freeze exactly where the "perfect" shot needs to be. Try getting a picture of a baseball making contact with a bat or a golf ball sitting on the driver's face with a 1fps camera. Yes it's possible and probably had been done, but again, with each fps added your odds of getting it increase substantially.

Most of us sport shoots don't push the shutter button and hold it down, we do 2-4 shot bursts, sometimes more, but I've never held the shutter down till the buffer filled (except when first experimenting with the camera, which I did a whole bunch) and I've never seen anyone do that either.
--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D and lots of typos
 
I would have jumped on it if it was 5fps +.

I have a 10D now which does 3fps. In spending this much $$ I was hoping for better speeds.

Perhaps Canon left it at 3fps (because I believe they have the tech to do better) because they didn't want to give us too much at once. Why? Because they can make more money and make less people angry by not replacing the Mark II.

I had a friend explain it like getting enough milk from the nipple to just quench the hunger for a little bit, but then you're always coming back for more! (upgrading to the next better camera) LOL
--
DeeDee G.
http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/root
 
Agreed that a higher speed camera is better for sports. But to make a blanket statement that the 5D can't be used for sports is, well, dead wrong.

Enjoy...
 
Steve..these are very good points! If your plan is to shoot sports then there's no other camera that can do the job than a 1 series. It is the only product in the Canon line that can do an effective job - day in and day out.

John
Steve Mitchell said:
No it's not. Sometimes I think non-sports shooters don't realize
that a camera which gives you the ability to shoot 8.5 fps does not
mean you shoot 8.5 fps. And yep, in the good ole days it was manual
focus and single shot....in the good ole days 50 mph won the
Indianapolis 500 as well.
--
Steve Mitchell
http://www.dphoto.us
http://www.musicpix.net
Click to expand...
 
David Martin said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I fell you may be talking of me and my 350D -"a pin-hole camera" ???- perhaps a comment. For games like soccer IMHO the duration of the burst is AT LEAST as important than the FPS. I have not said the higher FPS is no good, but I still think the 20sec burst you get with 5D is better than the 4.5sec burst you get with 20D. I get about the same burst length with my 350D, and I can say it IS TOO SHORT.

Of course if the spec would be 60JPEG and 5fps (12sec burst), that would be good - probably good enough for my needs though 20sec is still clearly better (and 40sec with small JPEG size is superb - I just would have liked the 5D to have the high speed crop like D2X - perhaps 8Mpix 5fps and burst size around 90 JPEGs (means 18sec)). And I'd like to see user adjustable frame rate (like 1Dmk2 has).

And finally, in its lower speed setting the 1Dmk2 "the ultimate sport camera" takes only 3fps - so I guess even Canon sees some use for this "pitiful low" frame rate.
Member said:
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
Click to expand...
 
DeeDee G. said:
I would have jumped on it if it was 5fps +.

I have a 10D now which does 3fps. In spending this much $$ I was
hoping for better speeds.

Perhaps Canon left it at 3fps (because I believe they have the tech
to do better) because they didn't want to give us too much at once.
Why? Because they can make more money and make less people angry
by not replacing the Mark II.
Click to expand...
no, because a 5fps full frame shutter would be a lot more expensive, and the data transfer would equal that of the 1DmkII, what you get is the same data transfer speed as the 20D
BTW even the 1DsII does with 4fps..
DeeDee G. said:
I had a friend explain it like getting enough milk from the nipple
to just quench the hunger for a little bit, but then you're always
coming back for more! (upgrading to the next better camera) LOL
--
DeeDee G.
http://www.pbase.com/deedee_g/root
Click to expand...
--
Less is more...

sadly, this rule does not apply to lenses...
 
Half the resolution, half the buffer, half the battery life, more noise, and a completely different sensor (CCD vs. CMOS)--I think you and I define close differently. I won't argue that the 1D is great sports camera, but it's not close in my book. But then, everyone has different needs, so the original 1D may indeed be "close" for someone who doesn't need what the Mark II adds.

Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
The 1D Mark II (new or used) is what you want for sports--nothing
else comes close...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ohyva said:
David Martin said:
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.
Click to expand...
As I fell you may be talking of me and my 350D -"a pin-hole camera"
???- perhaps a comment. For games like soccer IMHO the duration of
the burst is AT LEAST as important than the FPS. I have not said
the higher FPS is no good, but I still think the 20sec burst you
get with 5D is better than the 4.5sec burst you get with 20D. I get
about the same burst length with my 350D, and I can say it IS TOO
SHORT.
Click to expand...
Wow, I barely get more than a one-second burst with my 20D. But then again I shoot RAW only. I have a 20D and I think I'll get a 5D as a second body. When the 1D3 comes out that will become the first body and the 20D will get passed down. I need a second body now and I can't really decide what to get.
ohyva said:
Of course if the spec would be 60JPEG and 5fps (12sec burst), that
would be good - probably good enough for my needs though 20sec is
still clearly better (and 40sec with small JPEG size is superb - I
just would have liked the 5D to have the high speed crop like D2X -
perhaps 8Mpix 5fps and burst size around 90 JPEGs (means 18sec)).
And I'd like to see user adjustable frame rate (like 1Dmk2 has).

And finally, in its lower speed setting the 1Dmk2 "the ultimate
sport camera" takes only 3fps - so I guess even Canon sees some use
for this "pitiful low" frame rate.
Click to expand...
ohyva said:
ohyva said:
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
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--

'Silence! What is all this insolence? You will find yourself in gladiator school vewy quickly with wotten behaviour like that.'
 
It's the closest thing, it's closer than you think (I have both), and it's about the same price as a new 20D. It was (and still is) good enough for double trucks in Sports Illustrated. For the dedicated sports shooter with ~$1500 to spend on a body it should be a no-brainer.

Same game in typical HS gym available darkness, one with 1D and one with 1DMkII, both at ISO 1600... which is which?





Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
The 1D Mark II (new or used) is what you want for sports--nothing
else comes close...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
LOL - awesome! That was a great reply. People get SOOOO hung up on the specs that they forget to ask themselves the basic question "Will I see a difference?" Brilliant!
 
...the 1D is a very serious sports camera indeed (why shouldn't it be, it ruled for quite some time) as long as you "fill the frame". That's of course something you want to strive for anyway but more important when there's not as many pixels to make a crop from. In that way it takes a more skillful photographer than the 1D Mark II does. The colors and "look" of the pictures are special too.
 
I think I see a little more grain in the bottom one, but it's a tough call in such a tiny image. But anyway, it really doesn't bother me that you think the 1D is close to the 1D Mark II--4 MPs sure wouldn't work for me (or many others), but if it does the job for you, that's great.

Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Same game in typical HS gym available darkness, one with 1D and one
with 1DMkII, both at ISO 1600... which is which?





Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
The 1D Mark II (new or used) is what you want for sports--nothing
else comes close...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
So yes, it depends on the sports :D
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...
 
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the 1D is "as good as" the Mark II. If I thought that I'd have two 1D's instead of a 1D and a Mark II (and a 20D). I do think it's the next best thing, that it's grossly underestimated by most of those who've never used its "only" 4MP's, and that its results are a lot closer to the Mark II's than most of those folks believe.

And I also think the sports shooter with $5k to spend is almost certainly better off with a good used 1D and $3500 worth of lenses than with a Mark II and $1500-2000 worth of lenses.

Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Same game in typical HS gym available darkness, one with 1D and one
with 1DMkII, both at ISO 1600... which is which?





Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Nill
~~
http://www.toulme.net
Gary Hart said:
The 1D Mark II (new or used) is what you want for sports--nothing
else comes close...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, I won't argue with that. I think in general most of the disagreements on this forum are semantic at their core. For you the 1D is close to the 1DII, for me it isn't--really we're arguing the definition of "close" and we're both right (from our own limited perspective). And honestly, sports photography is just a hobby for me. I shoot lots of Major League baseball and can't get too close to the action, so I have to crop many images--4MP just won't do the job for me. But I suspect your prime objective was to point out the value of the 1D as a sports camera (rather than its similarity to the 1DII), and on that we certainly agree.

Gary Hart
http://www.eloquentimages.com
Nill Toulme said:
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the 1D is "as good as" the
Mark II. If I thought that I'd have two 1D's instead of a 1D and a
Mark II (and a 20D). I do think it's the next best thing, that
it's grossly underestimated by most of those who've never used its
"only" 4MP's, and that its results are a lot closer to the Mark
II's than most of those folks believe.

And I also think the sports shooter with $5k to spend is almost
certainly better off with a good used 1D and $3500 worth of lenses
than with a Mark II and $1500-2000 worth of lenses.

Nill
Click to expand...
 
You're better off putting that money on a 1D Mk2, and I'd say even the 20D is better for sports shooters. You want crop factors with sports, not full frame, and you want fps, and 8mp is enough for sports.
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
 
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