Interest in upgrading 6D contemplating 5DIV Vs eos R Vs wait for next editions

[h_._jm]

Dear Enthusiasts and Pros

 

I have had 6D ever since the year it got released. I like it I know it has a very basic AF but I knew that before buying.

My issue is I have become more into sports and healthy lifestyle myself and with it a focus on sport photography started.

I was shooting tennis yesterday and realised I don't like the continuous shooting speed; like I tried shooting my friend 5-6 in continuous shutter mode and each time I would shoot 3-4 continuous shots and none of them captured the moment the racket hit the ball.

 

Maybe me using a Tamron 70-200 got to do with AF performance being worse.

But nevertheless my 6D has glue and plastic falling off on the side; it's wifi connection is starting to show issue and sometime this year is right to upgrade.

So for the 5DIV Vs eos R the difference in price between them is about 400 more for the 5D IV.

 

All I am interested is how much better/worse is the AF between the two cameras and in sport photography is there one that stands out or not really?

 

I am also seriously considering selling the Tamron and upgrading to the 70-200 F2.8 is III as I am pretty sure this will boost the AF significiantly.

 

Much appreciated

Peter

[John Crowe]

My preference has always been to use full frame for landscapes and architecture and crop bodies for sports. The crop bodies generally have higher pixel density for higher resolution than all but the best couple of full frames and they have higher frame rates as well.

 

 

Neither the 5D IV or RP have very high frame rates for what you are trying to do, and as far as mid-low ISO, they don't have the resolution of all the 24 MP crop bodies.

 

 

If you can afford to keep the 6D to use as your other-than-sports photography and add a crop body, either DSLR or mirrorless, for sports, it is something to consider.

 

 

Without doing a ton of research, I don't think Canon has a mirrorless yet that has the 10 to 20 fps that you need. The best Canon body for sports in my opinion is the 80D with its 24MP and 8 fps. While the 1DX II is superfast, the resolution is just too low. I would love to recommend one of the Sony mirrorless bodies but although you can get AF adapters for your Canon lens the AF performance will be no where near what the Canon cameras can deliver.

 

 

Before spending the kind of money an R or 5DIV would cost, I would either wait for the next round of Canon cameras to emerge or go with the more affordable, and more sports appropriate 80D. My only concern is that it's 8 fps still may not be fast enough. I do think there are a few Canon upgrade cameras coming if you can wait a year or so.

Edited February 23, 2019 by John Crowe

[John Crowe]

Sorry, the 80D has only 7fps but is still a very good alternative. 7D II has 10fps which is ideal, but lower resolution. Still better resolution than the full framers. Both of these cameras will be replaced likely within the year though.

 

 

I would say get a used 7D II to get you through this year, then sell it at not much loss, when you can replace it with it's replacement.

Edited February 23, 2019 by John Crowe

[Jochen_S]

I only(!) have a 5D IV & 70-200/2.8 II.

To put things into plain English: The 5D is my "sports camera" but(!) I am content with an AF nailing approaching joggers and it's buffer. Sit down, do your own math. The 5D is an "everything and the kitchen sink camera", shooting about 6FPS. Why on earth should one of those nail the tennis ball where you want it? I suppose you'd either have to try shooting 4K video, to grab the right single frame out of that (and 5D ergonomics suck for that purpose: No EVF, just the rigid rear screen. All you could do is getting an aftermarket viewing hood for it. Mine is a cheapo; I am not overly happy. The magnetic frame you have to glue on your rear screen fell off and the magnets in the hood provide no really solid connection either. It optically distorts the screen that has lower resolution than a mediocre EVF and touch screen interface and hood in vour fingertips' way are less than ideal too.) or you could maybe try a real sports SLR like 7D II or 1DX or competing products.

I am not even sure, if the 1D X's above 10FPS will be enough for you. But I am no real sports shooter, just dabbling.

 

I haven't handled serious mirrorless cameras of any kind. From EOS R reviews I get it does maybe 3.5FPS with focusing in between? - That's anything but an upgrade. If you watch Michael Sasser on Youtube, he also rants about the unavoidable image preview after each capture, that makes tracking anything hard to do.

 

No clue how the AFs compare. - Dual pixel AF has a great reputation; I guess I'll use my 5D as a makeshift mirrorless, with a tablet as WLF substitute. But to my understanding the EOS R is not intended for sports, beyond shooting a single frame at a time.

 

So, if you are pondering upgrading from both your Tamron and your 6D maybe take a look at the Sony A9? - Yes, more money, not Canon - your decision. I'd be tempted by it's eye detection AF and maybe it is worth the extra cash?

 

Extra FPS: Your decision. Whatever you 'll shoot, you'll have to cull too someday. I am not seriously enough into sports to believe into a personal need for them.

• If possible I'd shoot a short video clip and watch it frame by frame to figure out how many FPS are really needed to make sure to capture the moment you want, by machine gunnery.
  
• ,I'd also try to figure out if there is a way to anticipate right moments, to nail those with a single frame, instead of continuous.
  
• I give a damn about frame rates without focusing in between, assuming these will in most cases get us nowhere.
  

FF vs. crop: I would be somewhat tempted to get hold of a Nikon D500 with 200-500mm, to cover my really long end for sports & critters, assuming I'd be unwilling to carry or earn a FF counterpart like the EOS 1with 200-400(x1.4). In general I think zoom lenses' IQ will most likely fall apart on a high resolving (crop) sensor. Buy 24 MP to get hopefully 4K stills or 6MP out after denoiseing & sharpening. - Are those enough?

 

Buy or wait? - I guess DSLRs will stay with us, but won't improve much more. Two pro-sports body release cycles from now CaNikons should be mirrorless and drool worthy.

[Gary Naka]

. . . .Dear Enthusiasts and Pros

 

I have had 6D ever since the year it got released. I like it I know it has a very basic AF but I knew that before buying.

My issue is I have become more into sports and healthy lifestyle myself and with it a focus on sport photography started.

I was shooting tennis yesterday and realised I don't like the continuous shooting speed; like I tried shooting my friend 5-6 in continuous shutter mode and each time I would shoot 3-4 continuous shots and none of them captured the moment the racket hit the ball.

. . . .

 

You need to reset your expectations to be realistic.

 

For the average person, getting the racket hitting the ball is a matter of luck, not equipment or skill.

Thus it is a numbers game. The MORE shots you take, the greater the probability of "eventually" getting the racket hitting the ball.

 

Capturing the racket hitting the ball is a VERY HARD shot to get, especially the serve. With a good player, the racket moves VERY VERY FAST.

You would need a camera that can do 20+ frames per second, to have good odds of capturing that.

I shoot with a Nikon D7200 at 6fps, and I can count on ONE hand the number of good ball hits that I have, out of HUNDREDS of shots.

Frankly, I do better in single shot mode and letting my brain time when to fire the shot, than blindly relying on the camera's burst mode.

 

Look at your shot sequence. At 5 fps, each shot is 1/5 sec apart.

Then see how much of an arc the racket travels between 2 frames.

Then start to divide the travel arc of the racket to a fine enough level to be able to consistently capture a hit.

- divide the arc in half = 10 fps

- divide the above half in half = 20 fps

- divide the above half of a half, in half = 40 fps

 

And AF has absolutely nothing to do with it. Because this is a timing issue not a focus issue.

Heck on a serve, the player is essentially still in the same place, so the AF is not active at all. I even used a manual focus lens on a serve.

As for the other moving hits, if the camera is in C-AF mode, it should fire even if the lens is not locked in focus. And again getting the racket hitting the ball is a timing issue, not an AF issue.

[John Crowe]

Well said Gary. I did not have the patience to describe your method. That is exactly how I determined the fps I needed in capturing on-coming race cars on the crest of a hill. 5D II was limited to 5 fps, and I realized I needed to get one more frame between those to get a much higher keeper rate. Got the Sony A6000 and problem solved. Not actually a higher keeper rate since I am throwing out double the shots but I am getting what I want. Sony mirrorless only fit my needs because I am using manual focus lenses on it. Optical viewfinders are much easier for following action. If I really concentrate and get in the flow, I can follow the action with a mirrorless, which only shows you the previous shot taken when in burst mode.

 

 

You are probably right about a tennis ball needing the 20 fps. Not much action on this post yet so I will think right out of the box here. It is a steep decision, but if you are truly considering a full frame upgrade and an extremely expensive zoom, how about a dedicated sports camera/lens? The 6D is a very good camera for all your non-sports needs. What about one of the Sony full frame, or better yet, crop bodies capable of 20 fps and their 70-200/2.8 or f4 for that matter? I know...kinda crazy...especially if the next round of Canon mirrorless include 20 fps. These are likely at least a year away maybe 2. To re-iterate, if you try to use a Canon AF lens on a Sony, you do not get useful AF no matter how expensive the adapter.

[Robin Smith]

Nice exposition Gary. I agree this is not something getting a 5DIV will help with (nor an R). You might get a few more with a 1DX at 18 fps or the Sony A9. The Olympus E1 MkII and E1MX can shoot up to 60 fps with electronic shutter, but it will be single shot focus (so no tracking). Probably the same deal with Panasonic G9. You might well get some more ball-hits-racket shots that way, particularly as micro 43 has greater depth of field which will cover movements out of the plane of focus better.

[h_._jm]

Thanks for Everyone; and esp to Gary for your detailed answer.

tbh i remembered now about 3-4 years ago I shot with the same 6D but different lens it was 135L and yes I did get the right moment but I am pretty sure as you said I used my brain to do the timing instead of what I done the other day lazily using continuous shutter mode.

 

I also like and will try the video idea and choose the perfect frame.

Yes I will not decide on an upgrade based on such as small niche momentary desire to get tennis ball hitting the racquet the very fact I got amazing results prior with the same camera is enough!

[Gary Naka]

There are LOTS of sports shots that require brain work and timing more than camera gear.

I still have trouble getting a head shot or high leg kick in soccer.

Half the time I don't expect it, and when it happens, it's too late for me to shoot.

The other half is trying to figure the trajectory of the ball and where it will come down, fast enough to get the camera pointed at the expected recipient.

It is kinda easy for the LONG kicks, but difficult for the short fast kicks.

 

It is not gear, but knowing the game well enough to predict the moves, and when it will happen.

 

BTW, back in the days of film, we shot tennis with a film camera where multiple shot speed was measured in seconds per frame, not frames per second. Or how fast could your thumb move the film advance lever, and how fast could your shutter finger hit the shutter. So learning to anticipate a point in the action was critical for us. So we studied the action hard, and learned when to press the shutter. The problem was, we did not know if we got the shot or not, until we developed the film, several hours or days later. So learning was difficult.

[Mark Keefer]

Personally, I consider my upgrade from 6D to 5D MK IV a significant improvement in performance. Going from entry level to a pro body. Currently the R is a entry level full frame mirrorless in my opinion. I consider it a nice camera but still the new mirrorless version of the 6D III sort of. You have to wiegh the pros and cons, DSLR pro body or latest tech entry level mirrorless.. personally I would stay with the 5D MK IV. Depending on what Canon will offer when the Pro Mirrorless hits that will be a new discussion. Looking back the 6D is not going to bring much on a trade, consider selling it, if it were me, do so while it has no major issues and has some value in my opinion, unless you need it for a backup body. I am adding my Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 focusing performed much better on the 5D MK IV than my 6D but that was true of all lenses, but especially noticable on Tamron in low light, where the 6D would struggle to lock focus. I would assume the new Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L III is going to be really good. Edited March 22, 2019 by Mark Keefer

[Mrcreem]

I have tired, and tried again.....

 

 

[Mrcreem]

But to no avail....oh well. The next frame that the ball comes off the racquet so fast its only a blur, anyway. Good luck. All my best, Mitch