Help me choose: 5DmkII 7D 60D

jonneymendoza said:
ok cool sorry lads. looks like his wrong lol.
Click to expand...


Well we all have an opinion it's just that a LOT of people will disagree with what he said ref sports togging!

To me it's one of the most challenging aspects of photography, and at the same time the most rewarding.

To discount it as not being proper photography (or a waste of a shutter click!) will be quite offensive to a lot of people!
 
Last edited:
^^^
Sorry to cause offence, it's just I assumed it was pretty much like, chase folks around a field through your viewfinder until there is a hint of some action, then let rip the continuous burst to maybe get lucky and capture a moment that isn't mundane, and not like every other sports tog there.


vulcan2912 said:
Any number of people on this forum could point you in the direction of some outstanding sports photography.

Here's one for starters.
http://www.bobmartin.com/bob1.html
Click to expand...

Cheers Vulcan, a nice example of sports photography being an art, I really like those images, they have something powerful and different about them, and you can really tell the tog went the extra mile to capture a unique image/moment.
But most of the images I see posted by sports tog's, are quite frankly, dull in comparison.
 
MomentCapture said:
^^^
Sorry to cause offence, it's just I assumed it was pretty much like, chase folks around a field through your viewfinder until there is a hint of some action, then let rip the continuous burst to maybe get lucky and capture a moment that isn't mundane, and not like every other sports tog there.

Cheers Vulcan, a nice example of sports photography being an art, I really like those images, they have something powerful and different about them, and you can really tell the tog went the extra mile to capture a unique image/moment.
But most of the images I see posted by sports tog's, are quite frankly, dull in comparison.
Click to expand...

No worries, no personal offence taken! Out of interest, have you looked at the contributions on here in the motorsport and sports critique sections? I'd be genuinely interested to hear your thoughts on some of them!
 
Last edited:
From having a quick flick through the sports section (not motor sports, which I will likely prefer the subject matter), I would say 80-90% of the images were mundane cookie cutter stuff that I find boring.

Some however I did like. For instance, I liked No.2 and 3 in the below thread (particularly No.2).
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=350489

I also liked the below guy's work, he captured some nice moments, and made good use of DOF to isolate the subjects from distractions...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=349080
 
Last edited:
^^^
Just looked through all his images, I new from the first few that the rest were going to be awesome. The guy is clearly creative and not just looking to take the same images over and over, I also like how he adds variety with portraits and abstract shots, and not just action action action that soon get's boring, the guy actually knows how to set the scene and tell a story.
 
Indeed, that's the type I love, as well as the action shots, which he also composes brilliantly while still being able to almost shoot from the hip. The guy must be able to see things in slow motion! That's a truely awesome sports photographer.

Apologies to the OP for taking it slightly off topic!
 
Last edited:
alchemistkevin said:
I can't see the classifieds but I'm not tied on my budget, can you please tell me how much it's up for please?

MODS: I don't want to bend the rules and won't be buying until I can access the classifieds just want to know how much it's up for.
Click to expand...

I am selling the 1DMKIV for £2800 and the EF 500mm f/4 L IS for £4000
 
@ odd jim
In that case I retract my statement with regards to those such photographers, I can clearly see how that could be fun, especially when the end result is a well crafted selection of images.
It actually reminded me of some high quality wedding photography I'v seen, just with different subject matter, you can see where the photographer picks up on the all important small details that paint a picture of the atmosphere and not just the highlights of the day.
 
MomentCapture said:
@ odd jim
In that case I retract my statement with regards to those such photographers, I can clearly see how that could be fun, especially when the end result is a well crafted selection of images.
It actually reminded me of some high quality wedding photography I'v seen, just with different subject matter, you can see where the photographer picks up on the all important small details that paint a picture of the atmosphere and not just the highlights of the day.
Click to expand...

Yay, I've broadened another photographers horizons! Seriously though, sports photography doesn't differ (aside from the technical aspects and the fact it's often faster of course) with other forms, it's about showing the story, the emotions, the atmosphere etc.
 
odd jim said:
Yay, I've broadened another photographers horizons! Seriously though, sports photography doesn't differ (aside from the technical aspects and the fact it's often faster of course) with other forms, it's about showing the story, the emotions, the atmosphere etc.
Click to expand...

I truly admire your patience. :thumbs:
 
odd jim said:
Indeed, that's the type I love, as well as the action shots, which he also composes brilliantly while still being able to almost shoot from the hip. The guy must be able to see things in slow motion! That's a truely awesome sports photographer.
Click to expand...

All about anticipation. Got to understand the sport to begin with. I reckon I could do an ok job in a footy match as I'm a massive footy fan.
 
MomentCapture said:
???
Click to expand...

I'm referring to those appallingly processed photographs of poppies that you posted in July, and then had the neck to lash out at Mr Toad's own Flickr site when he expressed what I would imagine most of us were thinking. I notice that you've since deleted them.

MomentCapture said:
From having a quick flick through the sports section (not motor sports, which I will likely prefer the subject matter), I would say 80-90% of the images were mundane cookie cutter stuff that I find boring.
Click to expand...

Considering the snap shots that you have posted on your own website, I'd say that you've got one hell of a nerve being so glib and dismissive about quote "80-90%" of the sports photographers on this forum.

I can shoot the portraits that you've taken without having to put any thought to it, but I'd love to see you produce high quality, newspaper worthy sports images and once you've done that show some alternate approaches.

Don't criticise what you don't understand or aren't capable of matching.
 
DemiLion said:
I'm referring to those appallingly processed photographs of poppies that you posted in July, and then had the neck to lash out at Mr Toad's own Flickr site when he expressed what I would imagine most of us were thinking. I notice that you've since deleted them.
Click to expand...

I have since posted many images in these forums, and my website was running out of bandwidth, so the old stuff had to be deleted.

Below is an example of one of those poppy massacres, some will like it, some won't.

35.jpg


DemiLion said:
I can shoot the portraits that you've taken without having to put any thought to it
Click to expand...

I just had a look through your website as well, and the short answer is "no you can't".
I know we haven't got off on the right foot, but don't let that stop you from trying bud. :)
 
MomentCapture said:
I just had a look through your website as well, and the short answer is "no you can't".
I know we haven't got off on the right foot, but don't let that stop you from trying bud. :)
Click to expand...

Shame you're looking in the wrong place!
 
Well you'd have to help me out by posting one of them or a link or something, because (and I mean no offence) I can't find a single example unfortunately? :(
 
jj_glos said:
I've got both the 7D and 1Ds2 and whilst the 7D is more feature rich when it comes to AF it is not far and away better when it comes to performance. There is very little in it. My old 1D3 was better than the 7D.
Click to expand...

Hi guys, I am new on here, but have both bodies.

I have both the 1DMkii and the 7D.
The 7D produces more keepers for me.
I keep the 1DMKii also as there is just something about it's images compared to the 7D when the light is good in the summer that I like.

For sports I shoot mostly mountain biking.
I use a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 and Canon 100-400mmL 4.5-5.6 equally depending on what I want from the shot.
It is worth noting that the 7D AF does not work for me when using a sigma 1.4x on the 100-400mm, even the centre AF point, but the 1DMkii AF does work with this combination although it is very slow.
This might be because it is a Sigma extender on a Canon lens, not sure.
 
Betsie said:
Hi guys, I am new on here, but have both bodies.

I have both the 1DMkii and the 7D.
The 7D produces more keepers for me.
I keep the 1DMKii also as there is just something about it's images compared to the 7D when the light is good in the summer that I like.

For sports I shoot mostly mountain biking.
I use a Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 and Canon 100-400mmL 4.5-5.6 equally depending on what I want from the shot.
It is worth noting that the 7D AF does not work for me when using a sigma 1.4x on the 100-400mm, even the centre AF point, but the 1DMkii AF does work with this combination although it is very slow.
This might be because it is a Sigma extender on a Canon lens, not sure.
Click to expand...

I'm surprised with the extender the AF works at all on an f/4/5.6 lens?

Oh and welcome!
 
odd jim said:
I'm surprised with the extender the AF works at all on an f/4/5.6 lens?

Oh and welcome!
Click to expand...

1D series will AF at f/8.
 
Ah I see!
 
Alrite. Let's get back to post 1 :)

So I was super confused even when I walked into a shop yesterday - but I had my wallet on me... & so I bought myself some nice bit of kit.

I got a 7D, couple of lenses & a flash. Every time I pick it up I'll think about it not being FF but every time it focuses, I'll say to myself, the 5D could've been slower :)

Here's what I got:
Canon EOS 7D
Canon EF-S 18-135mm f3.5-5.6 IS
Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM Lens
Canon Speedlite 430EX II

and not to forget... A Canon EF 50mm f1.8 II


Before I carry on, I'd like to say, even though I'm still not sure about the camera, the purchase was only made possible by the helpful comments on here - so thank you :)



Now for a few more questions...

I still have some money to spend so I'm going to buy some kit for a home studio setup. won't be spending a lot of money on this so any suggestions regarding what basic kit I'd need & cheap options would be highly appreciated.

Secondly, is the Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM a good lens or shall I buy something else for this money? (I haven't opened the package so I can still return it and get something else) - as mentioned in post 1, my primary interest with this lens would be motor sport photography and I'll probably need to add an extender to get closer to the action.


Thirdly, Shall I keep the 18-135 kit lens or sell it and buy something better?


Thanks again and here's to a new adventure :beer:
 
Last edited:
I have a 5Dmk2 but i regularly work with images from the newer APS-C bodies (7D/60D etc).

Personally if you are going to studio work i strongly recommend the 5Dmk2, but if you want more reach (sports/birding etc) then i'd recommend you look at a nikon - say a D7000 (oh the canon fanboy in me is crying with this recommendation)

The reason i'd reccomend a Nikon (*shudder* :)) is that the 18MP canon sensor uses for the 60D/7D etc has an annoying noise signature even at low ISOs. Another annoying effect is that many of the consumer lenses canon makes, although cheaper than nikons are not good enough to resolve the detail that the 18MB APS-C sensors capture. (If you use L-Glass you're fine but the price is much more expensive)
 
oopsie - i missed your last post sorry :)

Depending on how into motorsports photography you are you could consider getting the new L version of the 70-300, alternatively i'd reccomend the 100-400L. Having said that, the 70-300 is quite a good lens, one of the better consumer grade lenses canon makes :)

The best kit for crop canons is the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Great lens and i'm sure will give you better results that the 18-135. The flipside is (Again) the price and you lose a bit of zoom but personally i'd go for it.
 
If you have the option I'd definitely be tempted to return the 430EX in exchange for a Nissin Di866II. It's almost the same price (£20 more) and is the equivalent of the 580II.

The 70-300 is optically OK for it's price, but nothing stellar - it depends on your budget really. Personally I would have opted for a used 70-200/4 (non IS) at about £400, but that's double the price. It's also worth noting that the 70-300 won't take an extender properly.

It's all down to budget and what you feel comfortable spending.

As long as you are prepared to write off the money as a hobby, that's fine, but if you are spending in the hope of making money from motor sports then you need to be aware that it's going to take a long time to break into the market and even longer to even recoup the cost of your kit, let alone make a profit.
 
I was in the very same boat as yourself last month and in the end and also spending a good few hours in the shop I ended up choosing a 7D + 24-70L F2.8 which I have been very happy with. :D
 
Kurt.Paris said:
I have a 5Dmk2 but i regularly work with images from the newer APS-C bodies (7D/60D etc).

Personally if you are going to studio work i strongly recommend the 5Dmk2, but if you want more reach (sports/birding etc) then i'd recommend you look at a nikon - say a D7000 (oh the canon fanboy in me is crying with this recommendation)

The reason i'd reccomend a Nikon (*shudder* :)) is that the 18MP canon sensor uses for the 60D/7D etc has an annoying noise signature even at low ISOs. Another annoying effect is that many of the consumer lenses canon makes, although cheaper than nikons are not good enough to resolve the detail that the 18MB APS-C sensors capture. (If you use L-Glass you're fine but the price is much more expensive)
Click to expand...
The reason I decided to stick with Canon is I (*I think) understand some of the lenses they do and the way their cameras handle/behave. I've never had a Nikon before and most of the people I know have a Canon.

I knew the D700 would've been better than the 7D but the thought of going Nikon and the advise that their lenses were much more expensive stopped me.
 
Kurt.Paris said:
oopsie - i missed your last post sorry :)

Depending on how into motorsports photography you are you could consider getting the new L version of the 70-300, alternatively i'd reccomend the 100-400L. Having said that, the 70-300 is quite a good lens, one of the better consumer grade lenses canon makes :)

The best kit for crop canons is the 17-55 f2.8 IS. Great lens and i'm sure will give you better results that the 18-135. The flipside is (Again) the price and you lose a bit of zoom but personally i'd go for it.
Click to expand...
Thanks, I'll check out the 17-55 2.8 IS now.
 
DemiLion said:
If you have the option I'd definitely be tempted to return the 430EX in exchange for a Nissin Di866II. It's almost the same price (£20 more) and is the equivalent of the 580II.

The 70-300 is optically OK for it's price, but nothing stellar - it depends on your budget really. Personally I would have opted for a used 70-200/4 (non IS) at about £400, but that's double the price. It's also worth noting that the 70-300 won't take an extender properly.

It's all down to budget and what you feel comfortable spending.

As long as you are prepared to write off the money as a hobby, that's fine, but if you are spending in the hope of making money from motor sports then you need to be aware that it's going to take a long time to break into the market and even longer to even recoup the cost of your kit, let alone make a profit.
Click to expand...
I do have the option of returning stuff, I'll check out the Nissin flash.

The reason i went for Canon is: I understand the camera and flash talk to each other so I'm better off using kit than handles itself while I learn better flash control (Does that make sense?

The difference between 70-300/4 IS and 70-200/4 is actually not that much, the 70-300/4 was £430.

Is the 70-200/4 much better? If so, I'll return the one I've got and get this one instead.


While I'd like to make some money in the future, I've seen a lot of pro motor sport work and I've seen a lot of posts here in the Motorsport category (not being disrespectful to the posts here) the work doesn't compare with pro's (as opposed to wedding or portrait photography), so I'm not thinking of making any money from motor sport pictures because I'll need to be in a different league by the time I do.

Having said that, I do aspire to produce pro quality motor sport pictures and am ready to spend reasonable money doing so (before you ask: Canon 500mm is beyond reasonable money for my skills right now)
 
Kurt.Paris said:
I have a 5Dmk2 but i regularly work with images from the newer APS-C bodies (7D/60D etc).

Personally if you are going to studio work i strongly recommend the 5Dmk2, but if you want more reach (sports/birding etc) then i'd recommend you look at a nikon - say a D7000 (oh the canon fanboy in me is crying with this recommendation)

The reason i'd reccomend a Nikon (*shudder* :)) is that the 18MP canon sensor uses for the 60D/7D etc has an annoying noise signature even at low ISOs. Another annoying effect is that many of the consumer lenses canon makes, although cheaper than nikons are not good enough to resolve the detail that the 18MB APS-C sensors capture. (If you use L-Glass you're fine but the price is much more expensive)
Click to expand...

I'd disagree that Nikon is more suited than Canon for birding. If you look at the birding photo threads you'll see most use Canon due to the availability of good long telephotos which I don't think Nikon can compete with. In terms of the resolving power of 'consumer' lenses, there's nothing wrong with the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, even with a TC the resolving power will still be good (you might lose AF but a lot birding is done with pre focusing). Of course there are the offerings from Sigma too, but you can of course get these for Nikon.

Also, I don't see the issue with the iso noise on the 60/7d (or the 50 for that matter), or crops, their high iso capabilities are really quite good, especially when processed via Canons DPP.
 
Last edited:
alchemistkevin said:
The difference between 70-300/4 IS and 70-200/4 is actually not that much, the 70-300/4 was £430.

Is the 70-200/4 much better? If so, I'll return the one I've got and get this one instead.
Click to expand...
There's a reason the 70-200 sells for the same yet doesn't have IS and is 100mm shorter.

I think the suggestion of a better set of lenses is very worthwhile. We have the 15-85 (that's 15 not 17-85) and a 70-200F4. We hardly ever shoot moving subjects nor do shallow DoF on the zoom (that's what the 50 1.8 is for) so the slower 15-85 is fine for us. They are better than the longer zooms for image quality IMHO.
 
odd jim said:
I'd disagree that Nikon is more suited than Canon for birding. If you look at the birding photo threads you'll see most use Canon due to the availability of good long telephotos which I don't think Nikon can compete with. In terms of the resolving power of 'consumer' lenses, there's nothing wrong with the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, even with a TC the resolving power will still be good (you might lose AF but a lot birding is done with pre focusing). Of course there are the offerings from Sigma too, but you can of course get these for Nikon.

Also, I don't see the issue with the iso noise on the 60/7d (or the 50 for that matter), or crops, their high iso capabilities are really quite good, especially when processed via Canons DPP.
Click to expand...
Thank you, very reassuring comments (post purchase)
 
arad85 said:
There's a reason the 70-200 sells for the same yet doesn't have IS and is 100mm shorter.

I think the suggestion of a better set of lenses is very worthwhile. We have the 15-85 (that's 15 not 17-85) and a 70-200F4. We hardly ever shoot moving subjects nor do shallow DoF on the zoom (that's what the 50 1.8 is for) so the slower 15-85 is fine for us. They are better than the longer zooms for image quality IMHO.
Click to expand...
Thanks, will investigate my options.
 
odd jim said:
I'd disagree that Nikon is more suited than Canon for birding. If you look at the birding photo threads you'll see most use Canon due to the availability of good long telephotos which I don't think Nikon can compete with. In terms of the resolving power of 'consumer' lenses, there's nothing wrong with the Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, even with a TC the resolving power will still be good (you might lose AF but a lot birding is done with pre focusing). Of course there are the offerings from Sigma too, but you can of course get these for Nikon.

Also, I don't see the issue with the iso noise on the 60/7d (or the 50 for that matter), or crops, their high iso capabilities are really quite good, especially when processed via Canons DPP.
Click to expand...

not a birding man myself so am not going to argue there :)

Wrt to noise, i view a lot of images from various cams at 100% and comparing the 7D/60/600 to older canons, or nikons there is more noise - wont show in a print but at 100% its noticable. Also as soon as the exposure is incorrect (underexposed) that noise becomes more visible.

ETA: Truth be told as long as one buys a nikon or canon slr its very hard to be dissappointed. Not knocking the other brands but so far the big two have released pretty solid SLR
 
Last edited:
Kurt.Paris said:
I would not buy a 70-200 or longer lens without IS. Remember that IS will stabilise the viewfinder as well as the image. I find it more comfortable when tracking.
Click to expand...

For sport IS is largely irrelevant as you are almost always going to be way above 1/200th to stop the action.

The preference for buying an IS lens is more to do with the optics than the stabilisation itself, which is why it's always better to get the more up-to-date lens if you can afford it.

I've got IS switched off on mine 75% of the time.
 
I've looked at various options now and I'm still very confused with regards to how better the 70-200 f4 Non-IS is to my Canon EF 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM so I'm going to keep it for now until I realize that the pictures are not my liking.

The reason for the confusion is: apart from the comments on here; various reviews of the 70-300 seem to suggest it's not a bad performer (that's not saying the 70-200 f4 is not better) and should be adequate for non-professional use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top