Which camera?

I need some more advice please.

 

I have a Canon XSi and it's a fun camera but I noticed during several football games I desire for better features. I've been wanting to upgrade anyways so I might as well include features I'll need for sports.

 

During night games it's pretty hard on the ISO 1600 and I would prefer higher fps.

 

I'm debating between 50D and 7D. The 50D would be good for other types of photography I enjoy but I wonder if it's good enough for

sports? I rather not regret getting the 50D if it's not good enough for sports in the long run.

 

Thanks in advance.

<p>The 50D isn't bad.. that's what I've been using with some decent success.. you'll need noise reduction software for the ISO 3200 shots of course. <br>

Night football at ISO 3200 still might not work that well with any camera unless you have a *REALLY* nicely lit field. Most of us are putting a flash on the camera or better yet mounting the flash under the camera to help eliminate the red eye.</p>

<p>2 things of prime importance for sports - light gathering and speed (of AF especially). Neither of those 2 tick those boxes. Better with a full frame body like 1D or the Nikon D700/D3.<br>

Steve</p>

Thanks dave and steve.

 

Would a 580 EX II be sufficient to light night youth football games? If I coupled that with a 50D would that result in a

decent camera?

 

I would love to invest in a 1D but I'm kind of committed to the crop camera until I can get a 16-35L because I love

lanscape shots when I travel. I have the 17-55 2.8 IS for that reason.

<p>I don't think flash is a good option for football - not enough range and you'll get hard light and black backgrounds - this is why there are so many 400 2.8 lenses used out there!<br>

Steve</p>

 

<p>Many 7D users claim about one stop better high ISO performance than 50D. Further, 7D has a better AF system, higher frame rate, better exposure system, better view finder etc. If you can afford it, and considering your intended use, I cant see a better choise for the money.</p>

 

<p>For sports, if you're not already heavily invested in Canon lenses, get the Nikon D700. If you are, get the Canon 7D.</p>

<p>It depends on your overall budget and what telephoto lens that you have. The 50D is perfectly fine for sports but the video of the 7D is intriguing, but the extra $600 USD may be better put toward a very good telephoto. A Canon 200mm f2.8 L or used Canon 300mm f4 L come to mind.</p>

<p>Oh, and the Nikon D700 is highly overpriced for what it does.</p>

<p>I would go a Nikon D300s over a D700 in your position. You will get the better high iso performance that you want, the increased fps you want (especially if you add an MB-D10 battery grip plus you advantage of the 1.5x crop factor over the D700. ISO 1600 is more than acceptable on a D300s and ISO 3200 is usable.<br>

You will loose so absolute image quality compared to the D700 but from where you are coming from the saving in body cost will will be considerable. Just remember that with a D700 you need to buy a 300mm lens to get the same effective "reach" as a 200mm lens on a crop DSLR (like a D300s). You are starting to talk huge dollars at that level.<br>

A slightly less expensive option from the D300s would be the D90 which will still way out perform the current camera that you own.</p>

 

<p>I disagree Richard. The difference between my D300 and D3 is immense. I'd say ISO1600 on the D300 is borderline acceptable, about the same as 6400 on the D3. You just can't beat light gathering power especially for indoor sports.<br />Also the large viewfinders on FX cameras are really nice. <br>

Steve</p>