p.2 #1 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Just saw this piece on sportsshooter.com and thought it might be of interest to those looking at the 20d for sports.
Dec 20, 2004 at 10:26 PM
FrankIsCool Offline • [X]
p.2 #2 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill Toulme wrote:
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.)
www.toulme.net
Nill, I'm puzzled how you decided the 20d wasn't fast enough for sports. Maybe you got a bad one, or buggy one
I shot a martial arts touranment Saturday. VERY fast action, and I took 450 shots over an 8 hour period and went through TWO batteries. I was using a fast prime lense with USM and it was indoors with 400-800 ISO. I caught throws in mid-air etc. The 20d with my 80x Lexar memory card was [bi]incredibly fast. I had it on "continuous" mode and the camera basically took shots like a machine gun, and not once would it ever say "busy" while it depleted the buffer.
p.2 #3 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Being a guy who did actually get a "buggy" 20d the first time out, I'd be the first to say that it's possible. But IMO there are a couple of things to keep in mind with Nill's post...
First, like the title of the thread says, "20d vs 1d for sports". I hope you don't take this question as being argumentative, Frank, but have you shot with a 1d? While the 20d is a nice camera, it's more like a BB gun compared to the machine gun speed of the 1d!
Second, Nill's got the kind of experience that I'd guess he'd recognize pretty quickly if he had a "dud" 20d. It didn't take me but a few dozen shots to figure it out, so I'm sure he'd been on top of that if it were an issue.
That's very cool, though, that the 20d is working out well for ya, especially in those indoor situations! I'm totally pleased with mine, especially for indoor shooting.
p.2 #4 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
The more i shoot in very low light situations with fairly slow lenses (f/2.8 has become "slow" to me) with my 1D, the more i long for a fairly clean ISO 3200 shot from a 20D.
I can see myself buying a 20D or it's successor for a backup camera within the next year. (notice how i said backup)
Dec 21, 2004 at 02:52 AM
FrankIsCool Offline • [X]
p.2 #5 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Scott, the 20d shoots like a machine gun to me; I can't imagine having anything faster. I would have to have a 30GB memory stiick to hold all the shots!
Nill, what memory card were you using in this comparison??
Dec 21, 2004 at 11:23 PM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #6 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
The CF card doenst affect the frame rate, except for when the buffer is filled. It also doesnt have anything to do with the lag time of the camera. On paper they both seem so close that you wouldnt think its possible to tell a difference but in real use you can definatly notice a difference. The 1D is so fast and responsive that it basically feels like all you have to do is think "shoot" and it fires the shutter. The 20D is very quick, one of the quickest around in fact but theres still a definate delay between pressing the shutter and taking the shot.
Ive surprisingly found that as ive gained experience shooting sports, I actually take less shots even with a faster camera. I used to shoot sports with a 10d and its 3 FPS and would take several hundred shots, and now with the 1D mkII and its 8.5 FPS I only take 100-200 shots usually. A quick press of the shutter fires a few frames of peak action and then I let up. With a slower camera I would often need to start shooting earlier which of course results in more frames exposed.
p.2 #7 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
The best way I can think to explain it to someone who hasn't used a 1-series camera is this. Back in the early 80's I had a Mazda RX-7 — a fairly fast, very responsive sports car that I dearly loved. One day a buddy let me drive his new 911. My first reaction was "Hey, this feels a lot like my car." And then I glanced at the speedometer and noticed I was going 85 on a twisty two-lane city street...
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Dec 22, 2004 at 09:15 AM
FrankIsCool Offline • [X]
p.2 #8 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Nill,
The best way I can explain it is, in similar terms, my Corvette does 180. The Lamborghini does 200. 180 is 3x the average speed limit, so it does someone NO good to buy a lamborghini except for bragging rights. The 20d is an incredibly fast camera. I shoot events MUCH faster than soccer and fooseball (i.e., catching a punch flying in mid-air) and it does just fine with an ultra fast lens.
I ask you again, what lense were you using? It's not just the camera, it's the lens.
p.2 #11 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Interesting. If I ever have to shoot boxing, would you recommend that I use my 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2? And I would probably be using the Mark II primarily... which lens should I put on the Mark I as a second option?
Thanks,
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Dec 22, 2004 at 11:01 PM
FrankIsCool Offline • [X]
p.2 #12 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Maybe you could sell your mkii and buy yourself a 20d and use the $ for something else... j/k I know it's great camera, I just tired of the snobbery. The 20d is amazing, ahd plenty fast for boxing which is like shooting LIGHTNING, so I'm happy.
p.2 #13 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Well, I hope I'm not intruding here but the word 'snobbery' caught my attention and being the type I am...
Frank, surely you realize that you are participating in a discussion with some very (and I mean VERY) accomplished photographers whose portfolios put most of us to shame. Certainly Nill's work and his willingness to assist others is beyond question. In fact in my estimation the patience and responsiveness of photographers of such high caliber toward amateurs like myself demonstrates the exact OPPOSITE of snobbery.
What you are seeing displayed here is not snobbery it is EXPERIENCE. These men and women have actually used and tested the equipment discussed *in the field* and are in the unique postition to give direct feedback and advice tailored to the specific needs mentioned. Again, this is not 'snobbery' but TRUTH.
If your interest is boxing and a photographer of Nill's caliber (or any number of other photogs that participate here) suggests to you that the 1D is the best answer to your needs you should seriously consider their advice. just thinking about what takes place in boxing or any of the other 'fighting sports' leads me to think that the 1D would be superior. I have and use the 20D and my gut instinct tells me that the framerate for catching flurries and multiple punches and or kicks would probably be too slow. Now if we are only considering high ISO capability, then perhaps the 20D would serve better. ( I confess to not having re-read all of your discussion prior to writing this...)
I know I wouldn't hesitate for a second to follow the advice given here.
Well, to sum up-I hope I haven't missed anything important or misinterpreted someone along the way. If so, I apologize up front.
Regards,
Mongrel
*edited to add the word 'caliber' (Nill's caliber)
Dec 23, 2004 at 01:56 AM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #14 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Frank, Im sorry and mean you no disrespect but until you've shot with both a 20D and a 1D or 1D mkII, you have no basis to talk.
The 20D is indeed a very good camera but the 1D is for all purposes about twice as fast. This isnt to say the 20D is slow, its still very fast but the 1D is insanely fast.
You as much as think "shoot" and the shutter fires, pick up a 20D and you will notice a delay in comparison. The 20D fires more at like 4 FPS in servo mode while the 1D can do 8 FPS so for a given moment of time you've fired twice as many shots.
Also keep in mind that in the way your talking about speed is in freezing action at the peak moment, the way others talk about speed is in the ability to track an object coming at you very fast. Totally different things.
The apeture rating of a lens also doesnt affect his. You call a 2.8 lens "slow" however a lens like the 300 2.8 IS is actually the fastest autofocus lens made in terms of focus speed.
the 85 1.2L is the fastest lens made right now in terms of apeture however its also one of the very slowest to focus. Its darn hard to shoot any moving subjects with it.
Something else to consider is that depending how your shooting, even the slowest camera on there can work great for shots like boxing if your using strobes. The strobe fires at a duration of around 1/2850th of a second and thats the entire exposure. Its fast enough to freeze a bullet midflight, capture a light bulb exploding etc. Shooting with strobes though gives you only around 1 shot per second as the strobe has to recycle so the faster frame rates become meaningless. The only thing that matters is the responsiveness of the shutter as well as the photographers reaction time. You see someone on a fast break about to dunk the ball and you've got only one shot so you've got to time it perfect. Its a whole nother way to shoot
Nill in fact does own a 20D so I dont see where your coming up with snobbery either ? he's talked about how much he loves in in many many threads before. Its just for shooting sports that its not the best tool around.
Take a 20D out to a racetrack and shoot some sportbikes at 180mph from a corner at about 20-30 yards. They come at you so fast that all you see is a blur. The 20D just cant track the focus well enough no matter which lens you use compared to a 1D. With my 1D I press and hold the shutter down and I'll get basically every single shot perfectly in focus. Im telling you it blows me away still every time I use it and review the shots and see them all turn out in focus.
Id strongly encourage you to go shoot some other sports to fully understand what a fast sport is all about. Stand on the side of the pitwall with a top fuel dragster and you'll know what lightening really is. Even at 8 frames per second, I can only get 1 frame of the car coming towards me. In the fraction of a second it took for the mirror to come back down that car already covered so much distance that its out of the frame. Im to lazy to do the math but were talking about cover several football fields in a second so just image how many feet that car can travel in .15 seconds.
Dec 23, 2004 at 01:59 AM
The Big Bad Offline • • • • [X]
p.2 #15 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
Frank, what exactly about that shot couldnt be captured with a 1D mkII ?
A mkII wouldnt only capture that frame but would also give you a frame .15 seconds before and after that moment as well.
If we go back to your car analogy where you say that perhaps one car, a 1D mkII can go 200mph, but the other car, the 20D, can go 180mph, how would you expect the 200mph car to not be able to keep up with the 180mph car ?
Bottom line is that anything the 20D can do, the mkII can do better. Its not always a large margin of difference, and the difference in price is of course very large but where not concerned with that, were only dealing with outright performance.
Dec 23, 2004 at 02:03 AM
FrankIsCool Offline • [X]
p.2 #16 · Some 20D soccer, & thoughts on the 20D vs. 1D for sports
The Big Bad wrote:
Frank, what exactly about that shot couldnt be captured with a 1D mkII ?
A mkII wouldnt only capture that frame but would also give you a frame .15 seconds before and after that moment as well.
.
Guys, obviously the mkii is a better camera; I was mostly kidding. But I do think the 20d is an acceptably fast camera, and Im not sure the mkii is worth over triple the price. I wonder why Canon doesn't have something in between the two.
BUT, you are correct, I haven't used one. I just know I'm more than happy with the 20d, and I can't imagine shooting fooseball in nice, outdoor light, would be more difficult. But you're right, Nill has far more experience than I. Thanks and take care
