Will a 5d be a liability for sports action

I want to upgrade from my Canon 350d to either a Canon 40d or a 5d. I shoot mostly landscapes and portraits but I

guess approximately 30-40% of my shots are sports action (mostly wide angle). I'm wondering if the 5d AF will be a

liability for this type of shooting (I've been able to get some decent action shots with my xt although the AF has

always been an issue). Additionally, I'm wondering if the IQ difference between these two cameras is that dramatic

to warrant one camera over another. I'm considering the 5d because I hear great things about its IQ, the wide angle

factor, and the fact that it's price has dropped considerably due to its hailed successor. Unfortunately, I can't get my

hands on one to test as I live in the middle of nowhere. Any comments will be much appreciated.

Mathew,

 

I would think that shooting 3 fps would be a liability using a 5d

 

I shoot Nikons d300 and d700, and the 8fps is perfect. I would def. find 3 fps a handicap!

I would go with a 40D ( 6.5 fps ), you can get one now for less then half the price of a 5D. Put the $1100 you save toward

some good lenses. You can get an UW for landscapes.

The 5D is an excellent sports camera if you have good hand/eye coordination. I never had problems with its auto focus when shooting sports. I always used the center point.

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6602296

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/7337613

I do a lot of sports shooting and concur with other posters, the frames per second make a HUGE difference. I opted to move from the XT to the 20D to the 1D Mk III for the 10 fps. I would also consider the full frame vs a 1.3x or 1.6x crop factor a hindrance with sports shooting. Reaching out with a 100-400 canon is only aided by the 1.3x crop of the 1DMk III.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

J

How does the XT work in terms of speed for you. If you don't find its burst rate to be a major impediment, you won't have

a problem with the 5D. So, consider it neutral in terms of this aspect of your shooting.

 

On the other hand, if you print large, the full frame sensor will likely an improvement for your landscape work.

 

The fps issues is an interesting one. I suppose that if sports are your main thing _and_ you are the type of shoot who

not only relies on burst mode (which all of these cameras have) but also on a very fast burst mode then the 5D might not

be your best bet. On the other hand, if burst mode sports shooting is not the only or necessarily the most important thing

for you, you'll need to balance this feature against those provided by other cameras such as the 5D.

 

I've shot sports with my 5D (pro bicycle races, windsurfing) and related stuff (birds in flight) and I'm fine with the burst

rate of the 5D. Most often, even with I shoot these subjects and have the camera set to burst mode, I time carefully and

simply squeeze off single shots anyway. When I do need burst, the 5D fps is generally sufficient for my purposes.

 

Dan

Great pictures Elliot. Do you ever have an AF issue on the 5d when you need to take the quick photo? I'm guessing the AF on the 5d is much better than on the xt but I'm not sure (these cameras were released at about the same time).

Dan, I never had a problem with the burst rate of my xt, three fps seems sufficient, (although I've never had anything more.) What's driven me crazy is the lost shots due to constant searching when there is a bright background, cloudy afternoon, etc... I shoot snow sports and these conditions are common. I generally prefocus but there is always that unexpected moment when you want to get the shot.

 

So what do you think of the AF on the 5d ? How about IQ at high ISO's? (this is a big one for me as the xt IQ is seriously diminished at 800 and beyond) Do you think the 5d IQ is really much better than the 40d?

I'm fine with AF on my 5D. The lower noise at higher ISOs is one benefit of the larger sensor. I can't see any difference

between 100 and 200. I use 400 without much worry, even for low light landscape. I'll shoot at 800 and get good results,

though looking at 100% crops I can certainly see more noise - as expected.

 

As to the "is it much better" question, I would not say that a full frame camera is automatically "better" for everyone than a

cropped sensor camera. It really comes down to the value you place on a variety of features in your own photography -

and the "best" decision could be either depending on those issues.

 

If you don't push the upper boundaries of prints size, if you tend to not shoot from a tripod, if you need a bit faster burst

mode, if you like having a built-in flash... then the X0D cameras could be a better choice for you at a lower price.

 

If you print large, if you shoot with careful technique (esp. landscapes and other highly detailed work), if you value having

a greater range of available apertures from your lenses, if you usually use no flash or an external unit, then the full frame

camera could be your better choice.

 

Dan

I shoot sports on a 400D, and it works out fine for me. The 5D is equal, if not better (probably the last). The most

limiting factor is autofocus, as the 400D doesn't have AF-handhover between focus points, so I need to get my

tracking right.

 

I don't know if the 5D has AF handover, but as it is in a higher league, I think so.

 

As for burst mode: I feel that with the right timing, single shot mode generally gives better results.

 

But then I shoot swimming, which is a quite predictable sport. Teams sports may be different.

 

One huge advantage of a 5D over a 40D or 350D would be high-iso performance of course...

 

A downside of a full-frame for sports would of course be more expensive lenses for a similar field-of-view at a certain

aperture. The 200mm F2.0 is a lot more expensive than the 135mm F2.0... Personally, that'd be my reason to stick

with a crop-sensor camera for sports use for now...