Zander Alberts wrote:
Regarding the 30D to 1 series, it is phenomenal. It is like driving a fine sports car after a minivan. If you can swing it, I would go for a 1D2 and 300 2.8, with a 1.4x TC. If you need the light, you can go with the 300 2.8 and still have great AF. If you need more reach and can sacrifice the light, throw on the TC with a minimal loss of IQ. You can always crop down the 300mm shots. I would think that getting a 300 and 1 series would outweigh any convenience afforded by the 100-400. But I have never used that lens and am only speculating on that. ...Show more →
+1 to above on the 1D2 + 300 2.8 combination. If you need the light, there are three ways I can think of to solve it: faster glass, higher ISO or strobes. Strobes are not always an option, particularly to a non-pro like me. I went with the 300 2.8 and 1D2 and couldn't be happier with this combination.
40D AF is vastly better with fast glass like the 300 f/2.8L than with 100-400. It's chalk and cheese differences in speed and keeper rates if the subject is moving. I was appalled at how poorly my 40D does with the 100-400 in AI servo and then when I finally started using the 300 f/2.8L IS + 1.4x my keeper rate improved dramatically. Still my 1D II is even better. But the 40D has 2x the pixel density of the 1D II, so you need a 1.4x TC on the same lens to get the same reach as the 40D. A 40D + 300 has slightly more reach than a 1D II + 400 and weighs 3 kg less and costs $3K less.
So IMO get the 300L now and see how it goes; if it's still not good enough, sell the 40D and grab a 1D II.
SR777 wrote:
+1 to above on the 1D2 + 300 2.8 combination. If you need the light, there are three ways I can think of to solve it: faster glass, higher ISO or strobes. Strobes are not always an option, particularly to a non-pro like me. I went with the 300 2.8 and 1D2 and couldn't be happier with this combination.
I have to agree with SR777. I have used Mark II's and an EF 300 f/2.8/ EF 70-200 f/2.8 combination for 3 years covering a variety of high school sports...night football, baseball, soccer plus ice hockey and basketball.
From my experience shooting sports/action, the major difference between the consumer-grade Canon bodies and the 1D Series is AF acquisition, tracking and overall responsiveness...especially in less-than-ideal lighting conditions.
For daytime sports, the 300 f/2.8 and 1.4 tele-converter on any 1 Series body makes a great combination.
From my tests under all lighting conditions, the 20D/30D/40D are great general-purpose cameras but cannot compare to the Mark II, IIn or III bodies in overall performance and image quality.
I have a new photographer working with me who came from a portrait studio where 30/40D's were used for sports/action and portraits. The difference they have seen in the quality of their images since they have started shooting with One Series cameras is quite noticeable....their keeper rate for action photography has risen substantially especially for night and indoor sports.
SR777 wrote:
I went with the 300 2.8 and 1D2 and couldn't be happier with this combination.
Right on.
Both could be had for < $4k these days. (Non-IS lens.)
That is a pretty good deal for the performance you get out of the combo.
All cheaper options are significantly lower in performance especially for someone who aspires to professional looking results. Thus they represent a much lower value for your $ invested.
i bought a 1d2 and use my 40d as a backup. at the time, i thought i would just use the 1d for sports and the 40d for everything else, but i rarely touch the 40d now. the af speed and the bigger view finder is key, but i really love how my 24-70 looks now with the 1.3x
