Upgrade to 40D vs. upgrade 70-200 f/4 to f/2.8

<p>Hello everyone, I'm an amateur photographer with about a year's experience with dSLRs. I've found myself shooting a lot of sports lately, especially low-light indoor venues like gymnastics meets. I have a Rebel XT paired with a 70-200 f/4L (non-IS) that I use at meets. I often get blurred shots either due to subject movement and/or improper focus. I'm sure part of it is user error, but I can't help but think better equipment might improve things, also.<br>

I've come to a point now that I can afford one of the following upgrades, but don't know which to pursue: Either I upgrade my XT to a 40D or the 70-200 f/4 to an f/2.8 (non-IS). I understand I probably should have both upgrades to get where I want to be, and sometime down the road I eventually will, but that's a long way away and I don't know which to do first. For now, I'd like to do the upgrade that will give me the most improvement. Both upgrades will cost me more or less the same, factoring trade-ins. So, if anyone experienced in these situations can offer some opinions, is the better autofocus, ISO performance and frame rate of the 40D worth more than the extra stop of the f/2.8 lens? Also, is there is something else I'm not considering?</p>

<p>get the lens. I would even consider a prime and a tripod if your not getting IS.</p>

<p>Generally speaking, I always vote for better glass. However, I also own the Reble XT and never had a good day with it. In this case, I vote for the 40D upgrade.</p>

<p>It would be best if you could post a problem pix and let the board review it. Make sure the Exif is intact so we can see what the settings were when the shot was made. Most likely your AV was too low and you will need a boost in ISO to accomplish that.Are you using AI servo mode to follow the subjects movement (not sure your camera has that mode)?</p>

<p>Meant TV was too low</p>

<p>If subject movement and improper focus are your main problems, I would probably suggest upgrading to the 40D in this case. I own the 40D myself, and my previous camera was a Rebel XT. I can vouch that the 40D has much improved tracking capabilities and produces better images at higher ISOs than the XT. You also gain an extra stop in senstivity, by being able to increase to 3200 equivalent, and I would say 3200 on my 40D looks about as good as ISO 800 on my XT.</p>

<p>The usual reflex answer is "get better glass," but I'm not certain in your case.<br>

If your shooting was of a type in which IS would be useful (where camera shake at slow shutter speeds in the problem) rather than one of stopping the motion of active subjects I think that the multi-stop improvement in low light performance of the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L could be very significant.</p>

<p>However, the IS would not really help much at all in your case, so you'd basically be getting (for the most part) one stop and not a lot else. (Yes, <em>maybe</em> a bit better AF, but not night and day.)</p>

<p>The frame-rate question is an interesting one. Yes, the 40D will burst at something like twice the fps rate of the XT. But that is not to say that the XT will not burst - it does, just somewhat more slowly. It did not escape my notice that you did not mention problems with the current setup that are related to frame rate, making we wonder if you really need the upgrade for <em>that</em> reason.</p>

<p>I'd hold off on any decision for the moment for several reasons. First, by shooting at higher ISOs (are you already doing so?) and perhaps using a bit of noise reduction, you may well be able to get quite good images. I also think it is almost as likely that technique is causing the focus issues as it is that they are due to the equipment. (And don't expect every shot of active sports to be a keeper.) Finally, as you shoot more I think you'll develop a clearer picture of precisely what equipment would get you where you want/need to be.</p>

<p>Good luck,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Michael, I'm not at the computer with the images on it, but here are my settings: I have ISO set for 1600 and aperture at f/4. I tried both setting the shutter (in M mode) to 1/200, or using Av mode, setting exposure comp at -1 stop, which gave me about the same Tv. Any faster shutter speed or less exposure comp and there is too much noise when I correct the underexposed images in DPP. Also, I'm using AI Servo with back button focus, but this technique is new to me, so I'm still learning. Got some nice sharp shots of the back wall of the gym...</p>

<p>Thanks for all your feedback so far.</p>

<p>Dan, you're correct. I've kind of gotten around the frame rate issue by trying to time my first shot well. I shoot in RAW so I can only get 4 shots off before the buffer fills. You have a point about waiting, though--I've looked at the possibility of a used 1DmkII instead, but then I give up my EF-S lenses (which, in my case might not be a great loss, but I have no budget right now to replace them).</p>

<p>In your case, get a better camera first. The difference between the camera you currently own and the 40D is huge. The 70-200 f4 lens is already darn good.</p>

<p>If you are a big burst mode shooter - and especially if you need a deep buffer - it is probably better to shoot jpg. RAW is "better" when you plan to optimize images in post, for example if you are going to create "gallery prints," but if the end use of your sports shots is more modest, jpg should likely be fine.</p>

<p>I know you say you have been doing a lot of shooting lately that makes that lens seem like the answer, but what percent of the time, for the foreseable future will you be using that lens? If the next 6 months or so will be a lot, then the lens would be a wise choice. If the answer would be that you have another lens, or switching between several lenses might make the better answer the 40D. Now, my question is what focal length do you normally shoot at there? Any chance something like an even faster, although shorter prime could let you get a body and a lens, like maybe the EF 100mm f2? Of course I have a lens addiction....</p>

<p>Rich</p>

<p>How about a 40D plus a fast prime like 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.</p>

<p>You'll gain 2-3 stops rather than one, plus you get the improved AF of the 40D. No zooming of course...</p>

<p>What is the highest ISO you find usable on the Rebel? Chances are, a new body will give you more ISO to work with. Consider a monopod as well.</p>

<p>I found at indoor track meets I needed ~ISO 1250 or higher to get action stopping images(1/500 sec +) and that was a wide open prime 1.8 50mm and 2.8 100MM macro.</p>

<p>Of course light levels are different everywhere.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In most venues, gymnastics is difficult to shoot, even with top-of-the-line equipment, because of the poor lighting. Look at ISO, shutter speed, aperture, and fps, as the four edges of an envelope. For great results in the above venue you need a faster lens, and a body that allows higher ISO settings. The shutter speed will adjust upward as a result of the previously mentioned changes. The fourth edge, frames-per-second, is less important in gymnastics than other sports. Anticipation and timing are more important than fps.<br>

So, which to upgrade first? The 70-200 2.8L will give you 1 more stop. A 40D will give you a stop more through the ISO setting. I say the kicker for you is the frequency in which you use higher fps. With that said, I'm looking forward to the 1D IV for even higher ISO capabilities and 10fps.</p><div></div>

<p>I really like the idea of getting a used 1D Mark II. Traditionally, Canon has reserved their better AF and metering system for their top two bodies. The 1D Mark II will have 45 focus points. This will be dramatically different than a Rebel or even a 40D with 9 AF points. The 70-200 f/4 is a good lens; I would make sure to use it on a steady tripod in case you want take the shutter below 1/200th. Even at 1/200th you need to be pretty steady to fire off a sharp shot. Hence the tripod. </p>

<p>The 40D may have better auto focus and AI servo focus, but that will only help if the subject is moving toward you. It won't eliminate blur caused by sideways motion. For that you need a faster shutter, which means you need a faster lens. You probably already own a 50mm prime. They're quite good for indoor shots. And try ISO 1600 on your XT. If you get a sharp image, you will have a partial solution, and modern raw converters are quite good at disguising noise.</p>

<p>I have done some indoor sports photos and if you can't use flash then you need faster lens or higher ISO. Have you consider saving up for the 5D (slow frame rate) or 5DmkII (expensive)? You can easily shoot at ISO 1600 with the 5D's and up to 3200 is very acceptable. Fast lenses have shallow depth of field and are not great for team sports (like basketball) but O.K. for gymnastics.</p>

<p>Not sure what the answer is here. Gyms have HORRIBLE lighting.</p>

<p>AI servo is a powerful tool. . . but easy to mis-use. Have you tried simple "one shot" focus? I have actually had some success with that. AI servo *will* take photos that the camera thinks are out of focus. To use it right, you have to be focusing for a few moments on the subject prior to snapping the shot. (But don't press me further. . .I have already told you more than I know)</p>

<p>I am having a brain spasm. . .I believe the 40D has all high precision sensors, but the XT has none right? I think the XSi and 40D have the same AF system. Darn . . need to confirm.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, you need a F2.8 or fast lens to take advantage of the high precision points.<br>

But honestly. . .I think you just need to work on technique first. I had a 10D with a 70-200/4L, and have had good success in one shot mode. If the AF system is <em>really</em> the problem. . I see a 1D series camera in your future.</p>

 

<p>Why not do the 40D, and also the 70-200 f/4 IS? For what you are doing I think you need the IS, and at the price difference you may be able to pull this off.</p>

<p>Why not do the 40D, and also the 70-200 f/4 IS? For what you are doing I think you need the IS, and at the price difference you may be able to pull this off.</p>

<p>Ed, go for 40D as 70-200 f/4 is a very very good lens indeed. Canon 70-200 f/2.8 is more for full frame. Don't waste your money on the lens, upgrade to D40</p>

<p>Hi Ed, I think i have only seen the advice coming from one person but consider using a monopod first. it's not 1 stop that will make the difference. In fact, between the rebel, a 5D, a 40D, I don't think you would get any better results until you become a better shooter.</p>

<p>Also, a 2.8 lens is for any camera not just for full frame, but it is a heafty price to pay just to learn. Investing in good glass is always the better choice, i am still using my 80-200 2.8 L and i don't see any reason to change it. The same goes with my 28-70 2.8 L. In fact these lenses were pretty good on my D60...I am sure your RbelXT is far more better then how my D60 was...<br>

Pascal</p>

<p>How about 40D and Sigma 70-200 2.8? Much cheaper alternative.<br>

Or 40D + 100 f/2?</p>

<p>the rebel should be fine, a lens with a lower aperture to crank up the shutter speed, but the rebel does well up to 800 ISO, try it at 800 and 1600 and see what the images look like, set the camera at those ISO and shutter speed at least at 400, that is a darn good lens, I sold it when I bought the f/2.8 version. The IS does not help with moving objects. A good lens retains its value much better then a a great camera.</p>