I usually shoot with a Mark II or a 1D or both. A week or two ago I picked up a 20D for a walkaround/hikearound/fisharound, and I *really* like it for that purpose. See:
I also found myself snapshooting a wedding reception with it last weekend (the real photog didn't show), in almost complete darkness with the built-in flash, and again was very impressed with it (and with the Sigma 18-125 I got to keep it company).
I had no real intention of using it for sports work, but I've seen a lot of threads here and there speculating about it for that use, and particularly as to how it might compare to a used 1D for action shooting. So, curiosity piqued, I decided to shoot today's U-10 soccer match with it.
Using a relatively unfamiliar tool in an otherwise familiar situation is always a little hard, and it was particularly so for me in this case given that I don't have (and don't intend to get) a vertical grip for this camera (and I shoot vertical about 90% of the time). I quickly determined that I couldn't use my usual CF4-1 because the buttons are too close together for my hands to use that combination effectively. And I just as quickly realized that with the 1.6x crop, the 400 f/2.8 is too much lens on the smaller fields these little guys play on.
So I switched to the half button press method and the 300 f/2.8. Other settings were my usual Av wide open, AI servo, center point selected.
And I got some shots. But over the course of just one match at least, I never could adjust to the 20D's somewhat slower rhythm as compared to the 1D-series bodies. I felt like it just wasn't keeping up with what I wanted it to do, and that I was missing a lot of shots (not that I don't always miss a lot of shots, but here I felt like I was *really* missing a lot.) And of the shots I did get, I'd say my keeper ratio was well under half of what's typical. It's not that the AF didn't seem fast enough — it did. It was more a sense of sluggishness compared to what I'm used to — shutter lag? Seems unlikely, but that's pretty much what it felt like — not to mention that, subjectively, 5fps seems less than half as fast as 8fps. In addition, I had some trouble following and framing the action in the 20D's smaller viewfinder. (I think I'd better not try the 1Ds MkIl ...)
I also felt crippled in the post processing by not having C1 available yet for the RAW conversions. These are converted with BreezeBrowser (i.e., with the EVU engine), tweaked crudely and lurchingly in PSCS, and converted to jpg by BB's HTML generator with its default USM.
In summary, I have to admit that what kept popping into my head during the shoot was the old saying about "bringing a knife to a gunfight." My personal conclusion based on this very limited test is that, given the choice between the 20D and the original 1D for serious sports work, I would go for the latter in a heartbeat.
Again, I don't want this to be read as a knock on the 20D. I like this camera very very much and think it is an extremely compelling combination of value and performance, and I expect to keep it and use it happily for a long time. But — because I am fortunate enough to have the option — not for sports.
Complete game (well, what I got of it) with EXIF and slideshow at:
p.1 #2 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Id completely agree with you Nill. Ive only had limited time with the 20D but agree with where your coming from. Its not a bad performer and ive seen alot of nice work with it, but for me, even a 1 series sometimes seems as if its barely able to cut it. As fast and accurate as the 1 series AF and frame rates are, sometimes I could use a faster AF and even higher frame rate. Im sure we all could sometimes.
p.1 #3 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill,
Excellent action for these little guys. I just picked up a 20D today. I might shoot some soccer with it tomorrow to test it. Thanks for taking the time to write the review of your experience.
p.1 #4 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nil, very nice shots, esp. for your first sports shots with the 20D. I picked up a 20D for the same reason as you, Didn't intend for sports, but had to try it since the size is so convenient. It is very capable and I suspect I would like it even more if I didn't have 1D experience. Anyone moving up from the earlier generation DSLRs would have to be impressed. However, I think the usability difference between 5fps and 8fps and 3 to 5 fps is significant.
I have decided to sell the 20D but only because I went on a glass binge; good chance I will pick up another one down the road.
p.1 #5 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill,
Thanks for the review and perspective on the 20d. As someone who's been using a 10d for sports for last year I'm trying to decide what I'll want to get next...a 20d or a used 1d. I know the 1d would ultimately be the best choice for sports, but there are a ton of factors to consider (which I won't get into here).
My question is, how do you think the performance of the 20d would change if you were shooting JPEG rather than RAW? Do ya think it would improve at all and, if so, how? I very rarely shoot RAW and never shoot RAW for sports, so any insight you might be able to offer here would be helpful.
Thanks.
Nov 07, 2004 at 11:16 AM
Softechie Offline • • • [X]
p.1 #6 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill, There's no question on 1D or 1DmkII for sports shooting. They're made for that purpose. Even before testing out 1D I already know 1D is more superior to 10D and 20D for the day games.
Now do your same test with HS football night games, hockey, and basketball with their poorly lit gyms. See if 20D can kick 1D butt and which would be your first choice.
I've tested 1D with ISO 3200 and it's horrible comparing to 20D's 3200.
p.1 #7 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Scott Sewell wrote:
My question is, how do you think the performance of the 20d would change if you were shooting JPEG rather than RAW? Do ya think it would improve at all and, if so, how? I very rarely shoot RAW and never shoot RAW for sports, so any insight you might be able to offer here would be helpful.
Scott, I don't think that would change anything. It's not that I was filling the buffer and waiting for it to clear (which happens to me fairly frequently on the 1D-series bodies). It was the rest of the camera that felt like it wasn't keeping up with me.
p.1 #8 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Softechie wrote:
football night games, hockey, and basketball with their poorly lit gyms. See if 20D can kick 1D butt and which would be your first choice.
Hmmm. I'll try it when basketball starts, and you may be right. But I don't think so. I've shot b-ball and night soccer with the 1D for several years. I'd rather have a somewhat noisy shot than not get the shot at all.
I've tested 1D with ISO 3200 and it's horrible comparing to 20D's 3200.
I don't disagree with that at all. I'm a big fan of the 20D (and the Mark II) at 3200, and while others disagree, I don't really consider the 1D's 3200 usable other than as an emergency measure. But 1600 works very well, and in all but the dimmest gyms and stadiums, has gotten me the shots.
p.1 #9 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill,
Since you contribute the proceeds from your print sales to the team or other charity do you get to deduct your equipment as a business or other expense?
p.1 #11 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill,
I experienced the same thing you did shooting youth sports.
I have been doing it for about 20 years now and it is my bread and butter. I used a film SLR until I got my first 10D. Although I was able to get some good shots I was still using my film camera too because the keeper rate was just not there with the 10D. It just wasn't responsive or accurate enough. I then picked up the 1D and I haven't used a film camera since.
I used the 1D until I replaced it with a 1DMK2. I then picked up a 20D as a nice walkaround/vacation camera. I have tried it shooting soccer, as you did, and I found the same lack of response I had with my 10D. The 5 fps was nice and the AF is better than the 10D but it is still not up to the standard of the 1D in these areas. If I could only have one of these cameras, 20D or 1D, for sports it would be the 1D.
Given this I really like my 20D and it is real nice having that 1.6 factor shooting wildlife. Makes my 500's FOV much better for long shots.
Question about some of your youth shots. I have gone to posting my youth sports shots on password protected folders on my website so that only the parents, or who they choose, can see them. This has become an issue in my area displaying minors pics on a website without getting a release from everyone, which is impossible. Have you experienced any problems in this area.
p.1 #12 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill,
I want to thank you for this analysis on using the 20D for sports. The timing could not have been better!
I just returned from a girls field hockey banquet where many of my shots from this season were featured in a slide show for the parents and teams. This is my first experience 'seriously' shooting sports and I was very pleased to have a great response from players, coaches, and parents on my work. I have been considering doing this 'for real' in the spring and have been considering this very issue-will my 20D really cut it for this type of shooting, or would a 1D be a better choice?
Currently I am shooting a 20D and have a 300D as a 'backup'. While this combo was OK for a wedding I recently shot and other small events, I felt that it was lacking for shooting sports. I decided that the 300D kit would go and have been considering my options...
Second 20D
1D
1D MkII
Nikon D2H
After ruling out the 1D MkII (too expensive), Nikon D2H (can't really afford a 2nd system even though I have been impressed with sports shots I've seen from the D2H), I was left with the 20D or 1D.
Thanks to your post and opinion on this, I would feel confident investing in the 1D as a primary sports body. I shoot mainly fall and spring 'field sports' (field hockey, football, and lacrosse).
I really think that the combination of the 20D and 1D makes a lot of sense for me as I shoot everything from sports to portraiture, to the occasional *small* wedding and event. Each body compliments the others weaknesses and strengths very well I think.
I admire your work, and your opinion because of it. Thank you for taking the time to put this up, I (and I am sure many others) appreciate it.
p.1 #15 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Not if you don't get the shot in the first place. I've sold plenty of 13x19 prints of 1D images — most of them cropped.
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nov 22, 2004 at 08:52 AM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.1 #16 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Ive sold 20x30 prints from my 1D for that matter. In reality though, you have to ask yourself how many large shots do you sell and if its enough to make it even a valid argument.
Arguing that one camera is better than another because it can do bigger prints reaches the poing where is an invalid argument for most people. A PhaseOne 22meg back is better than any DSLR in regards to how big of prints you can make, but how often do most people need a print larger than 20x30 ?
Its rather like arguing one sports car is better than another since it can go 160 vs 140 mph. Yes one is faster than the other but in actual use, how many drivers will really see that kind of speed ? Probably slim to none, probably 100mph is the fastest they would go one can reason and as such, both cars are equal for most purposes
Now if your purpose for a camera is to make large prints, then your buying decision will need to factor that into account of course but overal I think its important to remember to make comparisons based on the factors of your actual use.
I remember one car I was looking at had ashtrays and a cigarette lighter and another didnt offer them, but since I dont smoke, I didnt factor it into my comparison.
p.1 #17 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
(I came here from your link elsewhere on this forum)
Ha, at last some good shots of soccer! Perhaps I've been looking in the wrong places, but at last here are some sharp shots which are well composed. Interesting that you did them with the consumer camera. Some of the shadows are a bit harsh for my taste.
Body-wise, my view is that it boils down to paying money and making choices. The 1-series stuff is different from the consumer stuff. For my sort of sports I need full-frame, so really there's no choice at all. Hopefully one day there will be lighter-weight full frame cameras.
p.1 #18 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Thanks Phil, you are very kind. I agree about the shadows in these images. I didn't apply my usual workflow and care to them as Capture One (formerly known as C1) isn't available for the 20D yet. These are pretty much a straight BreezeBrowser RAW conversion and HTML generation with autolevels, not what I would ordinarily do.
These shots, in similarly challenging light, are more representative of what I typically get from the Mark II and Capture One.
p.1 #20 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Excellent cross posts, Nill. There is some good info in both of these threads.
I'd only want to clarify/emphasize something that I touched on in the "indoor sports" post and not in this thread, and that is the differences in the 10d and 20d for sports. Having used a 1d for several Big12 football games this past season (thanks to Aaron Brown!), I can definitely understand how one would feel like the 20d is slower and a step down.
However, I think for someone who's been trying to shoot sports with the 10d (me being one!) or especially the DRebel, the 20d will be a noticable step up. And, if those people were to keep their 10d and use both the 20d and 10d at the same event they'd really notice a difference. Pretty much the same kind of difference you mentioned when comparing the 20d to the 1d.
What I found really tough was trying to decide whether I wanted to get a new 20d or a used 1d...especially since they're nearly the same price now! To be honest, I'm still not 100% convinced I made right decision going with the 20d, but since it's winter and most of what I'll shoot is indoors, the ISO capabilities of the 20d really played a big part in my decision. I'm thinking I'll make the most of the 20d for now and maybe next spring/summer pick up a 1d or maybe even a 1dMkII.
Thanks again, Nill, for the great info in your post and for the cross post!
