Used Canon body for sports

LongLensPhotography said:
I would use mine if I had to but given a choice I'd look elsewhere mainly because the buffer is very small and fills in less than 2s. You'd have to be quite selective with your shutter button. That's about the main problem with it, other than 5(?) fps will likely miss you the better frame every now and then.
Click to expand...
Isnt that only if shoot raw and/or shoot to both cards?
 
Last edited:
LongLensPhotography said:
I would use mine if I had to but given a choice I'd look elsewhere mainly because the buffer is very small and fills in less than 2s. You'd have to be quite selective with your shutter button. That's about the main problem with it, other than 5(?) fps will likely miss you the better frame every now and then.
Click to expand...

The 5D3's buffer is not small at all ... mine takes about 15 -20 seconds of raw images in a burst before it starts to slow down.

You must of been using slow cards in it or it was setup wrong.
 
If you want good write speeds then leave the sd slot empty as the camera defaults to the slowest card.
 
5d mkiii is very useable for sports, you'll get more pics to choose from via a 1d series camera though - a 1d mk iv is still a very good camera
 
Great replies in the thread. People do seem to have differing views but it's all good stuff.
Funnily enough a few of the cameras mentioned have come up for sale in the classified section.
 
MatBin said:
Isnt that only if shoot raw and/or shoot to both cards?
Click to expand...

I only shoot RAW because there is no point otherwise, and yes normally to both cards but I don't recall it being 10X faster without SD in place. It's maybe twice as fast, which is still crawling speed for action.

When I had 1DIII I could keep going for a a lot longer but admittedly the files were tiny in comparison. So tiny that I didn't see any point in using it any more....
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I only shoot RAW because there is no point otherwise, and yes normally to both cards but I don't recall it being 10X faster without SD in place. It's maybe twice as fast, which is still crawling speed for action.

When I had 1DIII I could keep going for a a lot longer but admittedly the files were tiny in comparison. So tiny that I didn't see any point in using it any more....
Click to expand...
5d mk iii is much faster if there is only a card in the compact flash slot
 
DemiLion said:
All I can say is that your 5DIII must be utterly unique.

Note DP Review's stats on the buffer capacity:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/13
Click to expand...

In what context are you talking? D850 is 51 frames vs measly 17. Even a D800 had same 17 but at much higher resolution. Or is your 5D3 different? Unless you bought the most expensive ever CF card back in the day (what for???) or bought one basically yesterday you likely have same as mine. Mind you some people say Fiat Panda is a fast car.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
In what context are you talking? D850 is 51 frames vs measly 17. Even a D800 had same 17 but at much higher resolution. Or is your 5D3 different? Unless you bought the most expensive ever CF card back in the day (what for???) or bought one basically yesterday you likely have same as mine. Mind you some people say Fiat Panda is a fast car.
Click to expand...


Why don't you try reading the post I quoted?
 
For that budget - I’d go for a 1d mkiv if you can find one - I shoot with the mkiii and it’s great value for money.

Looking at your lenses - I had the 200 2.8 and found it too soft wide open and generally not that great. If you’re serious about sport / action - id go for the mkiii and chop the 200 against a 70-200 non is - that should all come out to about 600 in total
 
toohuge said:
For that budget - I’d go for a 1d mkiv if you can find one - I shoot with the mkiii and it’s great value for money.

Looking at your lenses - I had the 200 2.8 and found it too soft wide open and generally not that great. If you’re serious about sport / action - id go for the mkiii and chop the 200 against a 70-200 non is - that should all come out to about 600 in total
Click to expand...
Cheers for the info. Like I said at the begining it was a light hearted general query as I had attended a talk at the camera club. Hadn't thought about sport photography at all before that. Hence the reason for second hand stuff. It may never happen. I'm not wealthy but have the funds to buy the best equipment new. I would have to be very very serious to do that though :)
 
Last edited:
I don’t shoot sports but for wildlife my 7D 2 is perfect
I can shoot puffins in flight with it the limitation in getting shots is me not the camera the autofocus is excellent
I normally use it with my 300 2.8 mk2 and shoot raw to main card and large jpeg to the backup as card
 
Why do you think you need a "sports camera", I've used my 6D to shoot BTCC without any problems :)
 
I have tried many camera's at Motorsport and found the least expected camera to get good images was the Xt1
Pic below taken with XT-1 and 40-150 F2.8
mfm1rhd.jpg
 
DemiLion said:
Note DP Review's stats on the buffer capacity:

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-iii/13
Click to expand...
Those figures do surprise me. I've recently sold mine so can no longer check. I was able to get shots like this one below - a composite, but all shot together. It will have been raw files written to the CF card.

I agree for dedicated sports a 1 series would suit better, but I just wanted to mention that I preferred the files I got from the 5D3 over the 7D2, so it's worth considering, and I didn't like the change in field of view when my other camera which was also full frame. (And the exposure meter is up the side in the 7D2 which caught me out a few times - not sure where it is on a 6D)

15744857706_88598d1d10_o.jpg
 
That's 15 images, so about 2 seconds' worth. Hardly the 15-20 seconds you were claiming!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top