Sports at 3.5 fps?

I am looking at my dSLR and considering a 40D vs 450D.

Though sports wont be a primary use of this camera (primary would be landscape/wildlife/macro) but can you get decent sports results with 3- 3.5fps vs 5-6 fps?

I guess I am wondering if the 40D's higher frame rate is worth the extra money?
--
Z812 IS owner : http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages
iMac 24 in. Alum., 2.8Ghz / Epson RX595

Mark in Cleveland said:

I am looking at my dSLR and considering a 40D vs 450D.

Though sports wont be a primary use of this camera (primary would be
landscape/wildlife/macro) but can you get decent sports results with
3- 3.5fps vs 5-6 fps?

I guess I am wondering if the 40D's higher frame rate is worth the
extra money?

Click to expand...

You will be able to get good pictures, but you will have less to choose from. When going through your pictures of a specific scene, would you rather have 3 or 4 shots to choose from, or 6 or 7? This will also come into play with wildlife as well. For macro and landscape it won't make one difference either way.

40D will also have other features that will help with sports/wildlife such as better AF and cleaner high ISO and a more durable shutter, should you keep the camera for more than a few years.

The 400D is a capable camera for those on a budget (as is a used 30D which will do 5fps), but if you do have enough room in your budget for a 40D than it will suit your needs better.

Mark in Cleveland said:

I am looking at my dSLR and considering a 40D vs 450D.

Though sports wont be a primary use of this camera (primary would be
landscape/wildlife/macro) but can you get decent sports results with
3- 3.5fps vs 5-6 fps?

I guess I am wondering if the 40D's higher frame rate is worth the
extra money?
--
Z812 IS owner : http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages
iMac 24 in. Alum., 2.8Ghz / Epson RX595

Click to expand...

I have shot sports with my 350D, martial arts mostly and got quite a few good ones. I think that if you shot raw the bigger buffer of the 40D will be a bigger benefit than the frame rate even though larger frame rate makes timing a little easier.

Of course you can get decent sports photos at less than 6 fps - anticipating the moment and releasing the shutter at just the right time may actually give you a better result than "spraying" with a machine gun burst. Though on some occasions it can be convenient (and probably important for pro photographers).

--
Misha

Yes, the 350D/400D/450D are capable of good results with sports.
The lens you use is very important and so is your technique.
Here are some examples from me: http://www.pbase.com/tvw/football

If you plan to shoot quite some sports I would suggest the 40D. It has better AI servo and much faster frame rate. I would love to change my 400D for a 40D.

--
http://www.pbase.com/tvw

North Island, New Zealand: http://www.pbase.com/tvw/north_island_new_zealand
South Island, New Zealand: http://www.pbase.com/tvw/south_island_new_zealand
Singapore: http://www.pbase.com/tvw/singapore

It's the photographer!

I shot lots of sports using cameras limited to 2 fps and 3.5 fps. Go back and look at all the sports moments capture with Speed Graphics (sheet film!!)

Learning to anticipate and be there rather than spray and pray is the key to effective sports photography.

Yes it sounds profound to say "it's just the photographer" but that isn't true.
How many pros would trade in their 400mm 2.8 for a Sigma 70-300?

How many would give up their 1-series for a 400d?

Absolutely you have to have the right skills. But a skilled photographer with better tools gets better photos - and more of them - in more variety of situations.

There is no question the 400d can take great shots.
There is no question you need good timing.

But, in the real world the right equipment makes our jobs as photographers easier.

In the 40Ds favor are:
Better build quality
Better buffer
ISO 3200
Better servo focus performance
Faster frame rate

Better ergonomics (although this is personal - some people could prefer the ergonomics of the 400d)

All these things make our job in the real world easier.

But - back to frame rate. Few pros would advocate a spray-and-pray approach. But few sports have a single moment that you either nail or you dont. If that were true, no sports shooter would use continuous shot. In the real world, if you're shooting human beings, they are often un-predictable. You can't predict whether another player will put a hand in the frame or your player will have their eyes closed. Much less taking a photo of people running - you can get some very akward positions. The higher frame rate isn't so you can rattle off 50 photos. It's so when you take a 3 shot burst their is less time between the shots.

I've shot sports for a number of years - at 3fps, 5fps and 10fps. LET ME LEAVE NO DOUBTS - MORE IS BETTER. I don't spray and pray but now I can take a 3 shot burst and select the best out of 3 great shots.

There are sports like hurdles, high jump etc where there is one peak moment but often the "moment" in other situations lasts for half a second. It's very beneficial to get 3 frames in 1/3 of a second and be able to choose the best of the 3 vs 3 frames over 1 second.

But you have to pay more to get the above features. AND, the 400d does a very nice job. It comes down to money. If you can afford good glass AND the 40d - no question its a better way to go. But if it's a choice between 400d & good glass vs. 40d and poor glass you'll get better results with 400d and good glass.

Thanks for all the replies. Unless Nikon surprises me with a "D90" announcement in March with delivery in April..(sorta doubt). I believe my purchase will be the 40D.

I need to purchase by mid-April..learn the camera before my Yellowstone/Grand Tetons trip the first of June.
--
Z812 IS : http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages
iMac 24 in. Alum., 2.8Ghz / Epson RX595

misha said:

Of course you can get decent sports photos at less than 6 fps -
anticipating the moment and releasing the shutter at just the right
time may actually give you a better result than "spraying" with a
machine gun burst. Though on some occasions it can be convenient (and
probably important for pro photographers).

Click to expand...

I'd claim you need a lot more than 6fps if you want to do sport with "pure machine gun style" and a huge buffer space. Learning the right moment when to shoot is the 1st and foremost skill in sport photography - and probably the hardest thing to learn together with proper panning.

I used to do sport with 350D (tried 300D, but there the problem was the AI servo was tied to the fixed sport mode fixed to ISO400) and 3fps was mainly OK. Now I have 30D and the 5fps is a bit better - and is for me worth the money (also because of the ISO3200 for indorrs sport). But I still say you can do nice sport with 3fps - and if you want to do really serious sport I guess nothing less than 10fps in 1D3 is sufficient ;-)

Thanks for the replies.
--
Z812 IS : http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages
iMac 24 in. Alum., 2.8Ghz / Epson RX595

Mark in Cleveland said:

I need to purchase by mid-April..learn the camera before my
Yellowstone/Grand Tetons trip the first of June.

Click to expand...

I think the earlier, the better. Especially if this is your first DSLR. It takes time to become familiar and comfortable with the camera. It also takes time to 'get to know' your lens. The sooner you get the equipment and familiarize yourself with it, the more keepers you will get. Especially important for these kinds of trips. How often will you get back there?

abana

Thanks. I totally agree. This camera (Canon XSi) doesnt ship until April (so they say) but perhaps it will ship sooner?
--
Z812 IS : http://www.flickr.com/photos/galloimages
iMac 24 in. Alum., 2.8Ghz / Epson RX595

Re> can you get decent sports results with 3- 3.5fps vs 5-6 fps?

Photographers with talent and skill can.

Others take movies and then try to grab a frame, becasue they can't learn to press the button at the right time.

There may be some times in some sports where a faster drive matters, but it's few and far between -- splashs in a kayaking shot, perhaps.

BAK

if you have any athletic ability you can probably do fine with a slower fps because you'll know how to anticipate the action. the 5fps cameras are for pro photographers who have never touched a football in their entire life, so for them spray and pray works best.

seriously?

I have the benefit of being a former athlete as well as a sports photographer and your statement is the silliest thing I've ever seen.

Most pro photographers do not spray and pray. That's just a very uninformed statement.

Most appreciate the benefits of having a very short lag time between shots because actual real world sports photography experience has taught them that things are unpredictable. Take a single shot and your subjects eyes are closed. Or another person's hand is in the frame. Or their stride just looks bad.

Or, for those that have actually shot sports - they realize that EXPRESSIONS help make a great photo. You can't predict that.

So taking a 2-3 shot burst (fairly common sports shooter practice) allows you to mitigate the above risks that are outside of your control.

Some instances there is only one chance to get it right - but very often the 2nd or even 3rd shot in a burst can be the keeper because the body language or expressions or lack of distracting clutter (i.e. other players) is more appealing.

Good points and good information. Thanks for the tips!

abana

BAK said:

Re> can you get decent sports results with 3- 3.5fps vs 5-6 fps?

Click to expand...

You sure can. But, like anything it takes practice. Be glad you're not using the old film.

BAK said:

Photographers with talent and skill can.

Click to expand...

Well, DUH!!!!!

BAK said:

There may be some times in some sports where a faster drive matters,
but it's few and far between -- splashs in a kayaking shot, perhaps.

Click to expand...

There are other times, too. The fast-paced basketball games or volleyball games are times when having 6fps helps. From one who's shot HS sports for the last 13 years, they are not few and far between.

You will get great sports photos at 3.5fps depending on the type of sports and lens etc.
I took these with my 400d and 100-400 lens...





--

Mark, I used an XTi for all the shots on my site with the exception of the first 15 of the Tiger and first 20 or so of the Ducks I used my new 40D. All the football was with my XTi and either the 18-200mm Sigma OS, 50-500 Sigma or the 2.8 70-200 L IS. I just bumped up to the 40D and a couple of things jumped out right away, first is the frame rate... really nice to have and I'm looking forward to Spring football. 2nd was the white balance seems spot on right out of the camera, surprised me but I like it. The AI servo was the best surprise, check out the ducks in flight, I wasn't expecting to take those shots and wasn't familiar enough with the camera to change settings on the fly, my first time out with the 40D, but had it generically set at ISO set at 400 using shutter priority and got some credible shots. Go with the 40D if you can, you won't be disappointed. The 450 won't compare in build or function if you want to do sports.

http://sports.zenfolio.com/
--
Chuck
91st member of FCAS

http://sports.zenfolio.com/

Life is uncertain, eat dessert first!

I'm an owner of both the XTi and the 40D, and my primary usage is for shooting MMA (mixed martial arts). I always shoot for precision timing and never rely on "spray and pray", so the burst rate has never been an issue. That said, all things being equal, the 40D gives me a significantly higher percentage of usable shots than the XTi due to it's ability to its swifter autofocus, and the fact than more of my shots are properly exposed. But, the XTi ain't terrible; in fact, the money I made with it allowed me to afford the 40D.

Obviously I haven't seen the XSi yet, but I'm sure it's at least as good as the XTi. That said, used properly and to it's full potential, you'll have great shots. With the 40D you'll have even better shots, and more of them.