I tested it when it came out, but the frame rate and tracking ability was abysmal. Not my first Canon body, so I knew how to set it up close enough to where it should have been fairly good. I agree with your assessment.
Joshua J. Ahern wrote:
I read that the new Canon 90D is replacing (since there is no announcement for a 7D III) the
Canon 7D II and could be used for sports.
Does anyone here had the chance to use it for Sports?
I used it for hockey and the results are awful.
Any toughts, comments...
thank you
Joshua, people want to keep accusing the 90D as being the new 7Dlll.
If the 90 were replacing the 7ll it would say 7Dmklll on it!!!
Don’t confuse a xxD consumer camera with a dedicated xD semi-pro sports camera.
Sure the consumer cameras get better and better. I’m sure it shoots sports ok. I shot LOTS of sports with a 5Dll and got some amazing pics but I missed many more amazing pics too!!
Sadly for a few hundred dollars more(maybe $1300) you could have gotten a real sports camera in a 1Dxmkl !
Consumer cameras have tons of what consumers want...., video, WiFi, gps, Auto modes and decent mp, but none of that helps you focus and shoot complex action shots.
I’m sure you’ll get it dialed in and start getting decent hockey but don’t confuse a 90D with what the the 7Dlll would bring to the sports table. For $500 you could get a used 7Dmkll. Good luck
John
Hockey is exceptionally demanding on gear, but if your results are terrible on a 90D maybe you haven’t fully optimized your results yet? Are you shooting F/2.8 glass?
I’m still new to it but so far my favorite hockey image was shot with my 6D mkI, a body nobody would argue is well suited to sports.
JohnSil wrote:
Joshua, people want to keep accusing the 90D as being the new 7Dlll.
If the 90 were replacing the 7ll it would say 7Dmklll on it!!!
Don’t confuse a xxD consumer camera with a dedicated xD semi-pro sports camera.
Sure the consumer cameras get better and better. I’m sure it shoots sports ok. I shot LOTS of sports with a 5Dll and got some amazing pics but I missed many more amazing pics too!!
Sadly for a few hundred dollars more(maybe $1300) you could have gotten a real sports camera in a 1Dxmkl !
Consumer cameras have tons of what consumers want...., video, WiFi, gps, Auto modes and decent mp, but none of that helps you focus and shoot complex action shots.
I’m sure you’ll get it dialed in and start getting decent hockey but don’t confuse a 90D with what the the 7Dlll would bring to the sports table. For $500 you could get a used 7Dmkll. Good luck
John...Show more →
+1 This is why sports action bodies are made and why consumer bodies fall way short of what it takes. The 7DMkII has a number of the necessary capabilities and generally is an acceptable solution. Although, IMO it does have some limitations especially in the low light & high ISO areas. Those shortcomings rear their head on poorly lit fields as it struggles to provide acceptable IQ. When the conditions become marginal, there is only one choice in the Canon family, the 1DX ver 1, II or III.
JMTC from shooting sports for more than 20 years.
Hate to disagree with everyone but used properly with good glass the 90D can do very well at capturing sports action. Just because it's not the flagship doesn't mean it's crap.
One advantage it has over the 1Dx is that because it's APS-C it makes your telephoto lenses seem longer.
Very true, most camera bodies with good glass attached can capture sports action but the simplicity of this statement is short of explaining what it infers must happen for it to be realistically accurate. There is a lot behind the 'used properly' part. For example: most consumer bodies have lower fps which require the user to possess additional skills including game knowledge combined with good anticipation in order to actually capture peak action. Additionally those bodies have slower AF acquisition and one has to deal with the IQ generated from the less proficient handling of noise generated from the use of high ISO in low light venues. Capturing a soccer header can be somewhat difficult with flagship equipment but with these limitations it becomes significantly more difficult. Again, not saying it can't be done but the frequency of achievement is definitely lower for the average amateuer. In the hands of a seasoned sports photogs it would be higher but still less than what they would get with flagship equipment. BTW, a flagship body in the hands of someone without the skills does not guarantee success. Like most things, it takes concentrated practice to obtain a skill level. The reality of it all comes down to finances coupled with motivation. What equipment to use depends on how much one wants to achieve, the amount of work one is willing to put in and of course, pay for it?
Here is a parting example regarding fps, the speed of action and the process. Our team was playing a pre-season match and since I haven't shot soccer for 3 months I too was in need of practice. The photo below is out of a series of 5 frames taken at 20 fps. From that group, there were only 2 frames that had the ball in it. The ball in the one before this was approximately 4 feet in front of his hand. Getting this frame required recognizing that a shot on goal was about to occur, rapidly moving a heavy rig 40º, finding the goalie, locking focus on him and shooting. Even then, critical focus was missed because in that split second of moving I had incorrectly placed the focal point on his waist vs head. Using ƒ/3.2 the DOF at 90 feet is only 3 feet, so the waist and feet are sharper than the rest. Ergo, my need to dust off the rust.
Joshua J. Ahern wrote:
I read that the new Canon 90D is replacing (since there is no announcement for a 7D III) the
Canon 7D II and could be used for sports.
Does anyone here had the chance to use it for Sports?
I used it for hockey and the results are awful.
Any toughts, comments...
thank you
I agree with the others, even an old Canon 60D and 15 year old 100-400 can do sports - well, soccer (daytime)
CW, not sure I understand what you're saying here?
Are you endorsing using any camera to shoot sports?
I know that a Kodak Brownie can shoot sports because I did it when I was ten years old!!
I also got amazing sports shots using a 5Dmkll, the worst sports camera ever made by Canon in modern history. BUT I can tell ya that having gone through two 7Dmkll's, a 1DXmkl and 1DXmkll that to shoot serious sports where serious people like sports editors are depending on your shots, I could not recommend a non sports camera for serious shooting. Sure there are times when if we are not a sports specialist we just run what we brung and can get great shots! BUT when it gets really dark and ugly and the rain starts coming down hard you'd better have a fully weather sealed camera with a fully weather sealed lens because putting your equipment away and going home is NOT always an option!!!
My initial response was only that the 90D was NOT the 7Dmklll replacement. The 7D is a fully weather sealed, designed from the ground up dedicated sports camera!!
The other part of that response was that used, dedicated sports cameras can be purchased very reasonably and for the price of a non-sports camera!
Will I ever recommend a non-sports camera to shoot serious sports...., never!
Can a person get great sports shots with a non-sports camera......, absolutely!
Sometimes you just gotta run what you brung.
Can you bring home ten sacks of cement with your car, sure you can, just put 5 sacks in the trunk and 5 sacks in the backseat and pray you don't bend the axle but it would be way better to use a pick-up truck!!!
John
JohnSil wrote:
CW, not sure I understand what you're saying here?
Are you endorsing using any camera to shoot sports?
I know that a Kodak Brownie can shoot sports because I did it when I was ten years old!!
I also got amazing sports shots using a 5Dmkll, the worst sports camera ever made by Canon in modern history. BUT I can tell ya that having gone through two 7Dmkll's, a 1DXmkl and 1DXmkll that to shoot serious sports where serious people like sports editors are depending on your shots, I could not recommend a non sports camera for serious shooting. Sure there are times when if we are not a sports specialist we just run what we brung and can get great shots! BUT when it gets really dark and ugly and the rain starts coming down hard you'd better have a fully weather sealed camera with a fully weather sealed lens because putting your equipment away and going home is NOT always an option!!!
My initial response was only that the 90D was NOT the 7Dmklll replacement. The 7D is a fully weather sealed, designed from the ground up dedicated sports camera!!
The other part of that response was that used, dedicated sports cameras can be purchased very reasonably and for the price of a non-sports camera!
Will I ever recommend a non-sports camera to shoot serious sports...., never!
Can a person get great sports shots with a non-sports camera......, absolutely!
Sometimes you just gotta run what you brung.
Can you bring home ten sacks of cement with your car, sure you can, just put 5 sacks in the trunk and 5 sacks in the backseat and pray you don't bend the axle but it would be way better to use a pick-up truck!!!
John ...Show more →
I'm saying most "enthusiast" interchangeable lens cameras can shoot sports, even one made over a decade ago (Canon 60D)
sure, "serious" people who are in the lucrative sports photography business that have to submit photos to a sports photo editor will probably want a true "sports" camera with the best lenses , e.g. 1DX but I'm not sure that's the OP's intent and budget
BTW - I'm friends with a former newspaper sports photography editor ...... he was forcibly "retired" a few years ago
schlotz wrote:
Very true, most camera bodies with good glass attached can capture sports action but the simplicity of this statement is short of explaining what it infers must happen for it to be realistically accurate.....
Here is a parting example regarding fps, the speed of action and the process. Our team was playing a pre-season match and since I haven't shot soccer for 3 months I too was in need of practice. The photo below is out of a series of 5 frames taken at 20 fps. From that group, there were only 2 frames that had the ball in it.....
Like schlotz says, it is possible to take solid sports photos with a basic camera and decent glass. I started with a Canon Rebel T5 and kit lens taking snaps of my son in soccer. I upgraded to a nifty 50, and added the 85/1.8, pancake 24/2.8 and pancake 40/2.8. Sharpness was better, but IQ wasn't. My results indoors particularly reflected the limitations of the body. I upgraded to th 7D2 for my intended use, and while its AF performance is incredible (for me, and not having any experience with a 1DX body), speed is also super important to capture peak action. My 7D2 burst rate is 10FPS, which is respectable, but I still miss peak action a lot of the time. Some is due to the limitation of the body, but the rest is my own inexperience. Good glass helps a ton, especially indoors. The low-light/high ISO performance of the 7D2 is not earth shattering. It's way better than the T5 I started with, but not FF or flagship-level. I have considered getting a 6D or a 5D3 to improve my low-light performance. The problem then is the burst rate is way slower, and neither body is optimized for sports. A 1DX body is still pretty far out of the budget, but if I want to get serious about indoor shooting, I need to step up both my game and my gear.
All I'm really trying to say is any shooter not doing this for a living (and probably most who do) need to prioritize their budget in sports shooting (especially indoors) and understand the limitations of their gear at their budget level. If I were to do it over again, I'd still get a 7D2. While the XXD series are nice, they aren't optimized for sports/wildlife use. I might add a 6D just for outdoor night shooting, another interest of mine.
WmPat wrote:
Hate to disagree with everyone but used properly with good glass the 90D can do very well at capturing sports action.
WP, LoL, in fact the ONLY person that has disagreed with you was the OP himself...., and I quote the OP, “I used it for hockey and the results are awful.” I guess it’ll be your job to convince the OP that his shots actually came out great! LoL
The only thing I said in my initial response was that the 90D was in fact NOT the successor to the 7Dmkll!
I myself said that sports can be shot with a Kodak Brownie, let along with a real dslr.
Most are only saying some cameras are better for shooting sports than other cameras!!
John
schlotz wrote:
The real bargain these days use a used 1DX - still a fantastic sports body and significantly a superior performer than any xxD or even the 7D2.
It'ssomething on the wish list now. Gotta figure out how to save up $1500 for it, and $1000 for an accompanying 70-200/2.8.... Anyone have a spare kidney they wanna donate for the cause?
BadAdda2d wrote:
It'ssomething on the wish list now. Gotta figure out how to save up $1500 for it, and $1000 for an accompanying 70-200/2.8.... Anyone have a spare kidney they wanna donate for the cause?
I’d gladly donate a kidney if I could but I’ve already sold both of mine to get the ll!!! LoL 😂
John
This is why sports action bodies are made and why consumer bodies fall way short of what it takes. The 7DMkII has a number of the necessary capabilities and generally is an acceptable solution. Although, IMO it does have some limitations especially in the low light & high ISO areas. Those shortcomings rear their head on poorly lit fields as it struggles to provide acceptable IQ. When the conditions become marginal, there is only one choice in the Canon family, the 1DX ver 1, II or III.
