Canon 5D for sports photography

<p>I've read a number of posts on the virtues of the 5D to the point where my brain's a blur of info. I'm thinking about adding it to my collection, but as I photography rugby matches, I'm currently using the 40D with a 30D backup (and have been happy with both), and a 100-400 mm lens; sometimes using the 70-200/2.8 if the pitch sidelines and end zones are on the narrow side.</p>

<p>my thought is to get the 5D (or possibly the newer version), and have the 40D as backup. Are there any advantages to using the 5D over the 40D for fast action photography such as rugby. I know my 40 D (like the 30D and 10D I've used in the past), have crop factors, and are not FF like the 5D.</p>

<p>anybody who's used both for fast action sports - if you can shed some light for me on this based on your own experiences that would be great - perks, pitfalls, etc. The 1DsMK series are a bit pricey at present, so I would think the 5D could fit the bill nicely for what I shoot, and I can use the lenses I have.</p>

<p>Thanks - Sheryl</p>

<p>Hello Sheryl,<br />I use the 5D for rugby, cricket and polo.<br />It's a perfectly adequate sports camera, although if you need the multishot facility, you might find 3fps rather limiting.<br />My preferred method of shooting is to use a 40D with 300/4 IS and the 5D with a shorter lens (24-105 or 70-200) for lineouts, kicks and scrums that are close at hand. I wouldn't be without the 5D at a game, particularly for portraits, but the faster frame rate and longer reach of the 40D make it the sports workhorse for me.<br>

<br />5D+70-200/2.8 IS - for close work<br>

<br /><a title="Maidenhead rugby by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3231/3018095107_81219cd42b.jpg" alt="Maidenhead rugby" width="333" height="500" /></a> <br /><br />40D+300/4 IS we always need something long for across the pitch<br>

<br /><a title="IMG_8108_T by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2240/2113599478_d14d1e8b98.jpg" alt="IMG_8108_T" width="500" height="333" /></a><br>

Hope this helps.<br>

P</p>

<p>You can get a 1D MkII for less then a 5D and you get 8fps and an amazing autofocus system. You might want to look into that. I know KEH.com has some in EX condition for just around $1000 so that should give you an idea of the going price.</p>

<p>This review talks of the 5D2 as being the best studio and landscape camera available.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx</p>

<p>The 5D (v1 or v2) is a poor choice for Sports Photography. How many times do you take WA Sports shots? Slow FPS, lower precision AF, and a build awkward for Monopod use (without the battery grip) is why most pro sports shooters use the 1D2 or 1D3 instead. For a general use camera, the 5D is fine, not great for Sports though.</p>

<p>I do high school running events and generally the 70-200 with a 40D has been ideal.</p>

<p>However, I always carry the 17-40 as there are times it has added a variety of photos to the events. The stands full of people, a great display of clouds overhead,etc.</p>

<p>Once, I forgot to pack the 70-200 but instead used that 17-40 for track. Forced me to think a little, but I got excellent photos. Someone once said the best lens is the one you have along.</p>

<p>I pleased with the results of the 40D for sports (although I wish there were additional selection of focusing points which I prefered in the EOS3).</p>

<p>I would certaily love to have the 1D3 for sports, but that is out of most peoples price range. Surely, the 5D would work well for sports. If I had a 5D and 40D, I would likely use the 40D for action and keep the wide zoom on the 5D. However, the suggestion 1D MkII I do think is an excellent one.</p>

<p>For sports photography, the winners are:<br>

1. 1D series<br>

2. 50D<br>

3. 40D<br>

4. 5D series.<br>

It's all about frame rate and speed and accuracy of autofocus tracking, as well as weather sealing (1D) in wet conditions. I own a 5D and 1DMkII, and reach for the latter every time I'm shooting action.</p>

<p>I own both the 5D and 40D. There's no question I'd be using the 40D for sports photography, because of frame rate and format. In particular, you're not going to be as happy with your telephotos on a full frame camera, and buying longer glass can get expensive. Others will argue that you can just crop out the margins and get the same thing, but do you really want to do that? </p>

<p>I, too, like the idea of the 1DII, although I have no personal experience with it.</p>

<p>Barnyard basics: people take pictures, not "the camera."<br>

In reality, virtually any camera listed is more than adequate, likely possesses a better capability than the user. Work on technique. Forget about "buying your way out" as a "solution."<br>

I use the 5D and the 50D plus a multitude of lenses and related equipment. None hold a magic-answer to success. Technique plus experience is the answer to your delimma. Neither "the camera" nor the lens is the answer.<br>

And an aside: if you think "machine-gunning" frames-per-second will deliver great results... think again.<br>

Back to basics: Know and understand the sport throughly. One-shot takes frequently work far, far better.</p>

<p>Christoper states "The 5D (v1 or v2) is a poor choice for Sports Photography"</p>

<p>Yep, your right!</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Are there any advantages to using the 5D over the 40D for fast action photography such as rugby.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. I have both and the 40D would be my choice for fast action sports photography. The 5D is a little slow compared to the 40D (frame rate) and you lose the advantage of lens factor with the FF.</p>

<p>I don't think that Chris was trying to say that you <em>can't</em> do it, just that given the OPs options, she <em>shouldn't</em>. The 40D would be a better choice. Plus, I would be worried if Mr. Hartt didn't take advantage of an opportunity to pitch the 1D ;)</p>

<p>I had a 40D and 5D and when shooting sports and/or races, I always grabed the 40D. Twice the FPS and 1.6 crop. If thats your primary use, save your money, you have a good kit.</p>

<p>m</p>

<p>I went digital (finally) with the 5DII and part of my logic was to shoot ice hockey in dim arenas. With a F2.8 lens (70-200 or 300 F2.8) I was unable to freeze the action with a 400ISO film and F2.8. Thus while the 5D2 is slower than the 1 series (I often shoot with 1V bodies) it has the edge over many cameras due to it's high ISO performance. Since a lot of the reason I bought it was for landscapes which I usually shoot with medium Format I wanted the slight price saving of the 5DII and the higher resolution and was prepared to accept the poor AF and slow frame rate. However, I shoot lots of Ski racing as my kids all race. I took the 5DII and tried it out and was pleasently surprised as it did much better than expected. I had minimal AF issues - but was always shooting with F2.8 lenses and 3.9FPS was sufficient. While i would not recommend buying a 5DII to shoot sport it actually does a very good job - much better than you might expect. Since I have (and still do) shoot ski racing with a manual focus Canon New F1 (which can only get to 5fps for 36 shots!) it may be that I am more forgiving of the 5DII. I also have the advantage of knowing the sport well and being close to the action. I would suggest that the AF issues of the 5DII (at least with fast glass) are overstated and just under 4fps is all you need if you know the sport and can time your shots. Remember we used to get great sports photos with manual focus cameras and 5fps or less. They required more skill from the photographer but still looked great. This is not to suggest that the 1DIII is not a better sports camera, merely to suggest that the 5DII is better than you may think. I would also take the 5DII over the 40 D or 50D as it produces higher quality images and is a better all around camera (it should be as it costs considerably more). With all this said I think that the glass makes more difference than the body. Having F2.8 or better lenses gives a big advantage of the consumer zooms you see on 30D and 40D bodies. I have tried using a 30D with a 200mm zoom (F5.6) and had big problems as I had slow AF (probably more a result of the lens than the camera) and a dark viewfinder. I tried using by 70-200 F2.8 on the 30D and things improved - but the camera balance was terrible as the lens was really too big for the camera. At least for me having a big bright viewfinder is more important that fast frame rates or the crop factor of APS-C as it allows me to really follow the action. Thus I would spend the money on good glass and then my priority order of bodies would be 1DIII, 5D or 5DII and finally the 40D and 50D. I am getting older and spent 25 years shooting film (35mm or larger) and find the viewfinder of the APS-C cameras a major disadvantage for sports work.</p>

<p>In reading through this thread, there seem to be a number of people who maintain the fiction that the 1.6 crop factor of the APS-C sensor results in a "longer reach" for a given focal length. The crop factor of the smaller sensor isn't some magical teleconverter: it just does what it says... <i>it </i><i>crops the full frame, nothing more.</i> Unlike a true teleconverter, it doesn't actually magnify the image at all. It just gives you a smaller area of the equivalent full-frame picture which gives the <i>illusion</i> of magnifying the image. You can get the exact same picture with a full frame camera by just taking the picture at the same focal length and cropping the resulting image yourself on your computer. So if one of your main reasons for carrying around a 40D to sports events is for the "longer reach" of the smaller sensor, you might as well unburden your shoulder and leave the thing at home for all the real good it's doing you.</p>

<p>Hi Sheryl,<br>

You mentioned that you may actually consider the new 5D2 in your original post. If that's the case, here in the UK the 1D mkIII is almost the same price as the 5D2. There is no better camera on the market for action and sports photography than the 1D mkIII in my opinion. It's also weather proof and built like a brick outhouse, 10fps and lightning AF performance.</p>

<p>I use the 5D for sports photography for one simple reason: it's what I have. I'd prefer a 1D III, but, well you know. That said, it's fine. Fast enough AF if you take a little care and enough resolution to allow for decent cropping. Also, the high-ISO performance makes it a good choice for night football games.</p>

<p>Yup, the 5D works for sports, but it isn't ideal. As mentioned above, with the larger sensor of the 5D compared to my 20D, the ability to crop my 5D photo mostly neutralizes the 1.6 multiplier effect. The biggest problem I had with the 5D is the autofocus, which seems marginally inferior to my 20D, and of course it has a slower frame rate. I bought the 5D for general purpose photography, and it's a great all-around tool. I've had many sports photos published using my 5D, and the main limiting factor is not the tool but the technique. If you need more specialized equipment than that, then I would move to Canon's professional line of sports cameras, currently the 1D MKIII. But then you sacrifice some of the renowned landscape features of the full frame 5D(or 5DII).</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their answers - based of the experience of what you all have gone through with your equipment, I think I'll stick with the 40D for now, with the 70-200/2.8. 100-400, and 17-40 lenses (which I always carry anyways).<br>

If budget allows at some point (and I'n not helping <strong><em>finance</em></strong> a rugby team), then perhaps the 1DMkIII may be an option down the road. It is a nice camera, just a tad pricey, and I always feel a tad leery about getting second-hand equipment - tempting as it may be.<br>

Peter - just LOVE the rugby photos. Reminds me of some of our guys here in Chicago.<br>

Sheryl</p>