Canon vs Nikon

[philmer]

I am considering buying either the Canon EOS 5d or the Nikon 2Dx. Whose lense offering is better? Nikon's or Canon's?

[Rex914]

What sorts of things do you shoot? Nikon does better at the wide end, but Canon does much better at the telephoto end. I would highly recommend a 1D Mark IIn over the 5D as a more fair matchup against the D2X.

[Chucko]

It depends on what you want to shoot. Nikon's wide angles have a strong reputation, while Canon's wides don't have quite as good a reputation. But Canon's telephotos are among the best available - not that Nikon is weak in this area; Nikon teles also hold their own.

Canon's sensor technology seems to be a notch ahead of Nikon's, specifically in lower noise levels at high ISOs.

Since I mostly shoot telephoto, and occasionally shoot night sports, I'm a Canon owner.

[philmer]

I shoot high school football video from the announcers box and want to get a DSLR with strong telephoto or zoom to use simultaneously to get accompaning shots to incorporate into highlight reels for the teams. I am up high and pretty far from the field so a high quality fast lens will be needed. Looking at the EOS 5D vs. Dx2 and the wide range of lenses between Canon and Nikon, I'm not sure what direction to go.

Any insight is appreciated.

Philmer

[Chucko]

That is a pretty demanding application, especially if you're talking about night games.

I would lean towards an EOS 20D (or even Digital Rebel XT, aka 350D) and the longest, fastest lenses I could afford. An APS-C sized sensor is better for telephoto use than a full-frame camera, because the crop factor multiplies the effective focal length of the lens, and the Canons have a reputation for very low noise at high ISOs.

[cdifoto]

I shoot high school football video from the announcers box and want to get a DSLR with strong telephoto or zoom to use simultaneously to get accompaning shots to incorporate into highlight reels for the teams. I am up high and pretty far from the field so a high quality fast lens will be needed. Looking at the EOS 5D vs. Dx2 and the wide range of lenses between Canon and Nikon, I'm not sure what direction to go.

Any insight is appreciated.

Philmer

I hope you have a LOT of money....you'll need it. Even most pros shoot from the sidelines or end zone...not the announcers box. You'd probably need about 500-600mm of focal length, or 400mm and be willing to crop.

[Rex914]

I shoot high school football video from the announcers box and want to get a DSLR with strong telephoto or zoom to use simultaneously to get accompaning shots to incorporate into highlight reels for the teams. I am up high and pretty far from the field so a high quality fast lens will be needed. Looking at the EOS 5D vs. Dx2 and the wide range of lenses between Canon and Nikon, I'm not sure what direction to go.

Any insight is appreciated.

Philmer
I would highly recommend going Canon in this case. If this represents the bulk of your work, you would best be served by a 20D + Battery Grip + a good telephoto lens like a 300 f/2.8 IS (one of the standard sports lens) + TC, or if you're willing to spend more and need the reach, go for a 400 f/2.8 IS or 500 f/4 IS.

[philmer]

Thanks for the reply, Chucko. Yes, a few are night games. I had excluded the EOS 20D because I wanted a larger (at least 2" and prefer 2.5") LCD with a higher pixel count (over 200,000) than what the 20D provides. But I'll reconsider it. So bottom line, Canon's the way to go for fast, telephoto sports shooting?

Thanks again.

Filmer

[philmer]

to Rex914:

How do you think the zoom telephoto lenses like Sigma's 80-400mm f 4.5-5.6 or 70-300mm f4-5.6 would work for my application. Their prices seem a lot more attractive than the $5-$7000 range of the Canon lenses.


Filmer

[Rex914]

to Rex914:

How do you think the zoom telephoto lenses like Sigma's 80-400mm f 4.5-5.6 or 70-300mm f4-5.6 would work for my application. Their prices seem a lot more attractive than the $5-$7000 range of the Canon lenses.


Filmer
The aperture of these lenses is too small to get you the shutter speeds you need to freeze the action. f/4 is minimum I'd use for outdoor sports in daylight, but f/2.8 is really what's needed at times. If you're shooting anything at night, you absolutely need f/2.8 or faster.

What's your budget on all of this? It strikes me as odd that you'd be willing to splurge on the body yet hold back a bit on the lenses. I'd personally have a 20D + 300 f/2.8 rather than a 5D or 1D Mark II with the two lenses above. :)

If you really have a restricted budget that won't allow for a true sports lens, your next best bet would be in lenses like the 70-200 f/2.8 (IS or non-IS) and the 300mm f/4 IS. Of if you don't need IS, Sigma makes a 300mm f/2.8 for about $2000.

[philmer]

From what I've read today, I agree with you, I need to put more of the dollars in the lens and less in the body of the camera. How important is 12 megapixels vs. 8 mp?

[Rex914]

Not a whole lot bigger, and not something I'd place priority on. It takes quadruple the megapixels to double the area. Doubling the megapixels will only increase the area by a factor of 1.4x, so you can tell that you aren't going to get much from a 50% increase in MP (factor of 1.18 to be exact).

Just curious, will you be using a tripod with this?

[cwphoto]

Forget the 5D; it's not designed for such work and the fact that it's FF puts it at a disadvantage for the type of work you describe.

So it's either D2X or EOS-1D Mark II N. I'd probably lean toward the Nikon as it has more MP on a smaller sensor to really exploit the tele end for your unique needs.

[ktixx]

Thanks for the reply, Chucko. Yes, a few are night games. I had excluded the EOS 20D because I wanted a larger (at least 2" and prefer 2.5") LCD with a higher pixel count (over 200,000) than what the 20D provides. But I'll reconsider it. So bottom line, Canon's the way to go for fast, telephoto sports shooting?

Thanks again.

Filmer

While large LCD's are nice feature, there are much more important and better tools you can use to get great pictures. One of the most important is the histogram. Once you know how to read a histogram you are covered for exposure making the LCD irrelevant for exposure (even though it isn't an accurate source to being with). Since LCD's are not used for composing shots for SLR's, size is irrelevant as your viewfinder covers composition. The only thing left is focus and the difference between a 1.8" LCD and a 2.0"/2.5" is not enough to ensure that a shot was properly focused. Using the Viewfinder and the histogram you will be able to properly compose and expose your shot...as far as focus, just take a bunch of pictures and you will be get a few that are just right :) :D

In addition, take a look at the Sigma 80-400 OS lense. I have read very good things about it and most people say that for the money they choose the sigma *(as a note - they say that if the canon was cheaper they would choose that).
Ken

[Rex914]

In addition, take a look at the Sigma 80-400 OS lense. I have read very good things about it and most people say that for the money they choose the sigma *(as a note - they say that if the canon was cheaper they would choose that).
Ken

It's great for wildlife, but he's shooting football at night. Even if the stadium is well lit, there's no way the Sigma (or the Canon 100-400) is going to cut it.

[cwphoto]

Your right Rex, I'm thinking 400 f/2.8 on a Nikon D2X may be the go (effectively an 800mm lens when shooting in high-speed crop mode with similar MP to the 20D).

[Rex914]

Or if he wants to shave off a little money, the D200 + grip should be just fine, shouldn't it? The $3700 he saves could be put towards a lens instead or simply not spent.

[cwphoto]

Yeah if bucks are an issue that wouldn't be too bad either, not sure of the guy's budget yet so I'm just recommending the best possible solution as I see it.

[ReF]

i think the d2x is the better of the camera bodies mentioned. it's got a smaller sensor to start with which will help you get the most reach out of tele lenses. then it's got 12mp, and a high fps cropped mode. i'd forget about the 5d as well, but look into a 20d or d200 if you want to put more $$$ towards the lenses.

if i were buying a 400 f2.8 lens though (the "standard sports lens"), i'd take the Canon 400 f2.8 with IS for $1000 less that the non-stabilized nikon any day. the canon is supposed to have excellent weather sealing; you'll have to go on nikon's site to find out if their version is sealed as well. if you've got less $$$ to spend there are also excellent 300mm f2.8 stablized lenses from both companies. i've heard awesome things about the canon 200 f1.8, and nikon has a 200 f2 VR. though a bit short and a bit slow when used with a TC, there are also 70-200 f2.8 lenses from both companies, in both stabilized and non-stablilized versions. i'd try to stick with at least f2.8 if you're going to shoot at night.

[cwphoto]

ReF, no point really looking at anything shorter than 400mm in my opinion.

Also, the fast Canon 200mm has been withdrawn from sale for some time.

[ktixx]

how about this canon combo?
70-200 f/2.8 w/1.4 tc on 20D(1.6x) = 156.8mm - 448mm
to suggest the 300mm, 500mm or 600mm canon prime is a little ridiculous as the shots are not going to be for professional use and for the average person the price just isn't resonable (~$3000 - ~$8000). I would suggest a high ISO with a fast good quality zoom and noise ninja or some other form of noise reduction program.

[cwphoto]

how about this canon combo?
70-200 f/2.8 w/1.4 tc on 20D(1.6x) = 156.8mm - 448mm

Too short, too slow. Needs to be at least 400mm (before the crop factor) from the nose-bleed seats IMO.

[ReF]

ReF, no point really looking at anything shorter than 400mm in my opinion.

Also, the fast Canon 200mm has been withdrawn from sale for some time.

it might still be available from that korean guy that's mentioned on FM.


that's probably why a 400 f2.8 is the standard sports lens. i guess philmer's got some serious dough to spend on one of those monsters, and don't forget a very strong tripod + gimbal head (more $$$).

[cwphoto]

True, although a replacement from Canon (with IS) surely can't be too far away. My money will be on the way to B&H as soon as that thing is announced.

[ktixx]

that's probably why a 400 f2.8 is the standard sports lens. i guess philmer's got some serious dough to spend on one of those monsters, and don't forget a very strong tripod + gimbal head (more $$$).

The only realistic suggetion is the 400mm f/2.8 with the 20D - a $7800.00 package :eek: not including a tripod (add another $500 - $1000)

[erichlund]

From what I've read today, I agree with you, I need to put more of the dollars in the lens and less in the body of the camera. How important is 12 megapixels vs. 8 mp?
You don't need quite as long a lens. If you have 12mp vs 8 you can crop 4mp and still have 8. Or crop 6 and still have 6.

One thing you have to consider is how you are going to use the photos. Are they primarily for the school newspaper, or are you doing large format printing? For a small image on in a paper, you don't need a 12mp image. This allows you to use a smaller, faster lens, and crop to the image you want to use. For large format, high quality printing, you may need every pixel depending on just how large. This, of course, will then require your lens to get exactly what you want in the photo.

Since I see you are going to use cut them into video, I presume there will be a display format. I suspect this will be more like the large format, high quality printing than the newpaper model. You may want to get somebody to get you some photos at various resolutions to cut into a sample and check it out on the expected display. This will give you a better idea of your requirement.

I do agree with the others, you definitely want the APS size sensor for this application. It will give you 50%+ more reach for any given lens. If the lens has IS, that's OK, but it won't do you any good for this application. You need a fast shutter speed to stop motion, and IS is more about slow shutter speed hand holding, where motion is going to blur you photos.

[philmer]

Thanks all for your suggestions and guidance. I've ordered the Canon EOS 20D, with the Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8, the Canon 1.4X converter, and the Canon EF-s 17mm-85mm f/4-5.6. Anticipating a great Christmas (at least, until the credit card bill arrives!)

Philmer

[D70FAN]

Thanks all for your suggestions and guidance. I've ordered the Canon EOS 20D, with the Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8, the Canon 1.4X converter, and the Canon EF-s 17mm-85mm f/4-5.6. Anticipating a great Christmas (at least, until the credit card bill arrives!)

Philmer

Definately a good set-up for what you need. But have you considered renting the big glass to see what works? Locally, a 300mm f2.8 runs about $68 for a weekend (fri-mon.).

[cwphoto]

Thanks all for your suggestions and guidance. I've ordered the Canon EOS 20D, with the Sigma 120mm-300mm f/2.8, the Canon 1.4X converter, and the Canon EF-s 17mm-85mm f/4-5.6. Anticipating a great Christmas (at least, until the credit card bill arrives!)

Philmer

The Canon 1.4x Extender you ordered is designed for a select few of Canon's lenses (has a protruding front element requiring a lens with enough room between the rear element and the mount to work), did you check that it will work with the Sigma?