Canon EOS 10D or Nikon D70 for serious sports photography

Hey there gang. This is my first posting. I am a serious film

based photographer that has been dabaling with the idea of going

completely digital. I really like the feal of the EOS 10D, but the

D70 seems faster, and has a better flash sync rate. Does anyone

know which would be better for photographing snow sports? The EOS

does have the battery grip which seems to be pulling me in because

of my cold weather use.

 

Any suggestions, -Greg

What film camera(s) do you use now?

I am shooting an N90s with 50mm 1.8 and barrow other lenses from a relative. this will end soon because I am moving.

It's not like you've got a huge investment in lenses ($100!), so you could really do

anything, IMO. Personally, I'd stick with Nikon just because you are familiar with it. I have

a D70 and absolutely love it - much better than the D100. My reasons are all subjective,

but I would highly recommend that you read <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/

nikon/d70.htm">this<a>. He lays it out much better than I ever could.

Greg -

 

I don't know how serious you are in to snow sports photography, but most/all of the top snowboard photographers are still shooting film (I know, I know, they're behind the times) with the Canon EOS 1v. However, I'm guessing it's because they really need the weather sealing of the pro camera series bodies in that type of shooting conditions, and to get that with digital you have to buy into the 1D series of camera (starting at $4500 new for the 1D Mark II). The other downside digital would have for shooting serious winter sports would be battery performance, which goes down significantly with temperature. You can work around this with off camera battery packs worn under your coat, or by carrying a spare set of batteries in a warm pocket and keep switching.

 

So, if you want a weather sealed camera, either stick with film and buy a EOS 3 or 1v, or be ready to spend big bucks for digital (you could buy a used Canon 1D for around $2000 - $2500 as a lower cost option).

 

If it's just cold weather and not blowing snow/moisture, a Canon 20D would be a good sports camera. It's frame rate (5fps) and autofocus are a big step up from both the Canon 10D and the Nikon D70, plus it's 8 mp. All you would need then is a 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

My 2 cents... Don't know anything about Canon, so I'll refrain from commenting on that option.

 

On the Nikon side, in my opinion, if you're serious about sports photography (snow or otherwise), and wish to go digital, your best bet would be a body with a Multi-CAM 1300 or Multi-CAM 2000 AF module, and an AFS lens.

 

That currently means:

 

Multi-CAM 1300 = D1X

Multi-CAM 2000 = D2H

 

The D70 uses a relatively slow Multi-CAM 900 AF module, and there are occasions when it's insufficient. I have both an F5 and a D70, when when I shoot fast action, I still go to the F5 (Multi-CAM 1300).

 

IF you have the money, are into sports photography, decide on the Nikon, want to go digital, and want it now, then the D2h is your only choice; or if you can wait, the D2X sounds appealing.

 

KL

The 10D has been discontinued. Its replacement is the 20D, with some significant improvements. Its an all-around better option than the D70 or the 10D. The D70 is more of an amatueur body, while the 20D is a semi-pro camera.<p>

 

20D: 8mp<br>

D70: 6mp<p>

 

20D: 5fps<br>

D70: 3fps<p>

 

20D: 6 shot RAW buffer<br>

D70: 4 shot RAW buffer<p>

 

20D: 23 shot JPEG buffer<br>

D70: 12 shot JPEG buffer<p>

 

20D: magnesium alloy metal body<br>

D70: plastic body<p>

 

20D: .90x magnification viewfinder<br>

D70: .75x magnification viewfinder<p>

 

20D: lower noise, very good even at ISO 1600<br>

D70: okay noise<p>

 

20D: battery grip (accepts 2 Canon BP-511 batteries or 6 AA's)<br>

D70: n/a<p>

 

20D: wireless-g wi-fi image offloading with Canon <a href="http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6459-7231-7233#wft-e1">WTF-E3</a><br>

D70: n/a<p>

 

20D: long range remote triggering with Canon LC-3 IR remote (100m range) or Pocket Wizard radio slaves<br>

D70: n/a<p>

 

20D: mirror lock up<br>

D70: n/a<p>

 

20D: cable release or programmable timer/intervalometer remote<br>

D70: n/a

<p>

About the only area in which the D70 outspecs the 20D is the flash sync (1/500 for the D70, versus 1/250 for the 20D). But the Canon 1D MKII and Nikon D2H (flagship sports cameras from each brand) have flash syncs of 1/250, too. And professional sports photographers seem to do fine with it. The EOS 1V and F5 film bodies also had flash syncs of 1/250, also. And pros did fine with them, too.

The previous poster said it all: Nikon is way behind Canon as usual. Most pros use Canons (see all the white lenses at the Olympics?) and Canon technology is superior to Nikon.

 

It's not really all that much of a choice. The only thing that would make you buy a Nikon is "feeling". But that's a silly, non-scientific reason which would get you laughed at when you tell the snowboarders or wedding couple that you didn't get the shot because of your slow Nikon...

Can't vouch for the Canon, but I can assure you, you will miss ALOT of shots if you try a D70 for fast action sports. It is just waaaay too slow, both in terms of frame rate and in terms of focus, and finally (on snow, I'd really want to shoot Raw), in buffer size. In practice, the AF nails one shot out of 5 in my experience. You get to shoot 4 raw frames before the camera stops for lunch, and shooting those 4 frames takes 2 seconds or more. Your snowboarder pulling whatever trick on the halfpipe is long gone by the time the camera catches up.

Serious sports photography? the Nikon D2X, D2H or Canon EOS 1D mk. II. Otherwise either

the 20D or D70 will be fine. Based on what you've told us about yourself either camera will

still be better than your current level of skill.

 

Another thing to consider is that none of these low end DSLR cameras are very weather or

waterproof, and last I checked snow was made of water. Maybe you should consider a

used D1H, D1X or EOS 1D instead.

<P> It's the same old question - "which camera body should I buy ?" - and the same old answer. It's not the specific body which counts or the specific features it contains, it's "Which system is better for YOU?". The camera is the heart of the system so it's important to choose the one which is more suitable to you. I - personally - don't see how any other system can match Canon or Nikon. Those two are in the peak as they have a wealth of lenses, flashes and other accessories no other system can match. So, here are some <b>system</b> differences between them. </P>

<P>1. All EF (but not <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#efs">EF-S</a>) lenses are <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html#compatibility">perfectly mated</a> with every EOS body. This is <a href="http://www.nikonlinks.com/unklbil/bodylens.htm">very different</a> than Nikon. As far as I am concerned, this is the most important issue. </P>

<P> 2. Canon has more AF lenses. BTW, mounting a manual focus lens on an EOS body is <a href="http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-manual-lenses/">a bit of a chore</a>. If this is your goal than Nikon is a better option.</P>

<P> 3. Canon has more IS lenses. </P>

<P> 4. Canon has more USM lenses.</P>

<P> 5. Canon has more TS-E lenses.</P>

<P> 6. Prices of comparable items are generally cheaper. </P>

<P> 7. MLU (Mirror lock up) is very handy feature for tripod shots. It is very rare in Nikon's AF bodies (I think that only the F4 and F5 has it) while is abounded in the EOS line. </P>

<P> 8. Another unique feature of the Canon system is DEP mode. DEP mode allows you to designate near-far points of focus and the camera sets depth of field between those two points. In DEP mode, you merely focus on the nearest point you want sharp, then you focus on the farthest point you want sharp, then you re-compose your picture and the camera sets aperture, shutter, and focus to achieve the depth of field you designated. </P>

<P> Search. A lot has been written on that subject.</P>

 

<P> Happy shooting , <br>

Yakim. </P>

<i>Another thing to consider is that none of these low end DSLR cameras are very weather or waterproof, and last I checked snow was made of water. Maybe you should consider a used D1H, D1X or EOS 1D instead.</i>

<p>

I've shot in snow and light moisture with film and digital bodies, none of which were weathersealed, and they all do fine. I've even dropped my camera in the snow, and it survived. Just dust off the snow as best you can before it melts too much, or wipe off any moisture with a towel. I don't think modern, well-made camera bodies are as prone to water intrusion or water damage as people think they are. And digital bodies, which aren't designed to be popped open for film changing, are even better at keeping out things. Now if you plan on shooting in heavy down-pour conditions or extended shooting in light rain, definitely get a weather-sealed body. But for light moisture and sprinkles, with reasonable care you should not have any problems. It takes quite a bit of moisture, leaking deep into the body's electronics, to cause any real problems.

As usual, many pro-Canon shooters are ignoring some points. For instance, Canon DOES have more AF lenses, but not many more. And yes, Canon DOES have more IS and USM lenses, but as we speak Nikon is introducing a new crop of AF-S/VR lenses, along with some very cool lenses Canon no longer or never has marketed (200 f/2 and 200-400 f/4, for example). While Canon offers MLU on more bodies, Nikon offers a spot meter on more bodies, which I find far more useful, even in macro photography. And comparing the 20D to the D70 isn't fair, as the 20D is 30% more expensive. The D70 is Nikon's counterpart to the 300D and kicks its butt. If by lens compatibility you're referring to Nikon's new trend of issuing G-type lenses (those without aperture rings), then yes, not all Nikon AF bodies can work with all current AF lenses in all modes, but of course (as has been pointed out), with many Nikons you can still use manual lenses if you wish. And don't forget that Nikon viewfinders are almost without exception better (bigger and brighter) than the ones on their Canon counterparts.

 

Is Nikon really that far behind? The D2X will, in all probability, prove not. And before anyone starts carping about the IDmkII, again, look at the prices: the D2X will be about 35-40% less expensive, and so is clearly not aimed at the same shooters. If Nikon wanted to lose money on the (current) full-frame market, they could have Sony make a FF sensor for them.

Mr. Phan simply acts as a Canon cheerleader repeating specs from brochures and ads instead of providing any objective analysis... Any Canon/Nikon thread he will appear and say the exact same stuff ad nauseum

 

Here's an insteresting link...

 

http://www.geocities.com/phanbusters/

<i>And comparing the 20D to the D70 isn't fair, as the 20D is 30% more expensive.</i>

<p>

But at this price range, these are the two models to compare. That's what this whole thread is about. And of these two models, the 20D is clearly the better choice, and is the better camera on which to build a system that is to be used for sports photography. The 20D more than fits the bill. If Nikon is going to introduce anything to compete, it will at least be another 6 months before one is available-- maybe even longer. Given Nikon's history of product launches, they may announce something at PMA in February 2005, and it won't be available for at least a couple months after that. For example, with the D2X, Nikon is announcing it now, will show it at Photokina in a few days, but Nikon has said that it won't be available until January 2005! That's if they meet their deadlines, which they have typically missed.

<p>

And while Nikon is belatedly and slowling catching up in lenses offerings, Canon got there years ago, and certainly is not going to be standing still.

<p>

Shooting sports photography with Canon gear, you certainly won't be alone, as these photos from the Athens Olympics show.

Pointless and erroneous attempts at character assasination aside, it's interesting that the objective listing of specs and performance factors specific to the requirements and parameters of the original poster should be criticized as not "providing any objective analysis." I guess we should just ignore specs and performance, and just flip a coin. For my money, I like to know that the tools I choose will be sufficiently up to the task, irrespective of the brand, or whether or not I get criticized for actually considering the specifications in making my decision. I would think that for Greg's cold-weather and action shooting, the faster frame rate, larger buffer, and battery grip options alone would be the reason for choosing one over the other. God forbid one actually take a look at the specs for that information. But I guess some would rather call that "cheerleading" and not being "objective".

"For my money, I like to know that the tools I choose will be sufficiently up to the task, irrespective of the brand, or whether or not I get criticized for actually considering the specifications in making my decision."

 

That's what actually using the equipment and not just reading through specs is for... Everybody has their own personal preferences on what their tools should have.. and to think that one's own preference applies to everybody else is absurd. Both cameras are very capable of taking excellent photos and each have their pros and cons.. However, in your posts, you seem only to highlight Canon's pros and Nikon's cons.. and pooh pooh the reverse (for example, there are many people who would find the 1/500 flash sync in the D70 a big plus).. hence not giving a complete objective analysis, ergo, what you are posting is closer to cheerleading than well-rounded analysis...

Amen, Jason. And as for introduction schedules, Peter, that only really matters if you upgrade your main equipment every year or faster, which the VAST majority of us do not. I'd rather Nikon take its time and get something right than rush it.

 

Both Nikon and Canon, as well as Minolta, have fantastic attributes/features, and they all have their drawbacks, too. If you like the Canon, go with it, and more power to you. What burns me is the one-sided "cheerleading," as Jason put it.

<i>However, in your posts, you seem only to highlight Canon's pros and Nikon's cons.. and pooh pooh the reverse (for example, there are many people who would find the 1/500 flash sync in the D70 a big plus)...</i>

<p>

Certainly, for some people, a 1/500 sync speed is valuable. But I did note that the current top-caliber sports bodies from both Canon and Nikon (the 1D MKII and D2H in digital, the 1V and F5 in film, and even Nikon's latest upcoming F6 film body), all have sync speeds of 1/250, so I was not "pooh poohing" in favor of any one brand because both brands have top sports models that have this flash sync...and sports pros manage just fine with that "limitation". And if you've done any sports photography, as well as watched sports photographers, you'll know that very little sports photography is actually done with flash. Or at least not with flash as the sole tool by which to freeze action. It's simply not a limitation that should be a crucial factor, because even if you went out and got an F6, or D2H, or 1D MKII, they would all be the same. So I wasn't exactly applying a selective "pooh pooh" here. I was just pointing out that in real-world applications, particularly for outdoor snow sports, a flash sync of 1/500 isn't as big an issue as it might seem. You still have FP high speed sync flash, and when the flash is just for fill, you can safely use regular non-FP flash, too, even at shutter speeds beyond the flash sync. Sure, some fill flash is nice for sports photography, but in reality, you will rely more on good light, high ISO, and fast apertures to stop action-- not flash.

dude, you're just making our case stronger and stronger... ;-)

I heard about a 200 f/2 VR a LONG time ago, but I don't think they're actually selling it.

"If Nikon wanted to lose money on the (current) full-frame market, they could have Sony make a FF sensor for them."

 

You hit the point - Nikon does not have the capability to make its own FF sensor. The best they can make is the 4MP/5MP sensor for D2H and D100. Others are made by Sony. They indeed will lose money if Sony make a FF sensor just for them - huge Sony R&D cost plus profit in selling to Nikon.

The 200 f/2 is about to ship, and Nikon's decision to farm out and have Sony make their chip had nothing to do with capability but with economics. Kodak doesn't make their big chip, either, and yet they have extensive chip-making facilities and expertise. It was a business decision. It's been widely circulated that Canon loses money with each Ds they ship, and the fact that the price has never dropped and that there's never been a rebate makes me think that's true.

OK, now that we have discussed all sorts of stuff, let me revise my thoughts.

 

I am a well educated photographer. Not a pro, but looking to turn my serious hobby into a side job. Snow sports is what I shoot. The N90s works well for snow sports. It may not have 8 fps but a well composed shot turns out very nicely. That being said, the D70 and the EOS-D10 are both similar in function at 2.5 to 3 fps. I am not looking to have a 14 shot 2 sec. sequence. I am not yet to that caliber of shooting, nor am I going to drop that amount of money into a body, example, D2H. I am just trying to understand which body would be better for snow sports. Oh and another thing, I know how to protect my camera for water, snow, etc. Weather seals are nice, but not essential to taking a well composed picture, and that is what I am concerned about in this posting.

 

cheers, -Greg

Well, if you're looking to go into this as a side business, and are going to be investing in a fair amout of gear, I would look at the whole camera system offered by the varying manufacturers, since once you get invested in a system it's harder to change. I read an interesting thread in the Nikon Forum at www.robgalbraith.com which had the whole Canon vs Nikon debate in a very civil manner (mainly testimonials from working pros). I think this is the right thread...

 

http://www.robgalbraith.com/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=269093&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

 

All that aside, I'd take the 20D over either the 10D or the D70. It's a little more money, but the higher frame rate and better autofocus would make the decision for me. Plus, I'm partial to the Canon system.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon