New 5OD or used 1D for sports?

PixNW · October 31, 2008

I've become quite a bit more serious about my sports photography due to my son's involvement in football. I've been using a 350D with a 70-200 2.8L IS most of this season. The majority of the games are outdoors in good light, though playoffs are in a stadium under the lights. I've sold some images, with all profits going to the league. Next year I've been asked to do more, and be the league photographer for the action stuff (I have no interest in the posed team photo's and such). I plan to again donate all profits to the league.

I want to upgrade my camera. I was about to order a new 50D, and then read quite a bit online, including here, about other cameras like the 1D Mk II N that I can get used. I like the idea of the extra MP for more cropping freedom when I can't get close to the action. It sounds like the 1D may offer better AF performance. I also travel quite a bit via motorcycle, and a SLR will always go with me. It sounds like the 1D is quite a bit more robustly built. Any thoughts would be most appreciated.

I'm also considering adding a 1.4x extender. I think it will either be that to use with my 70-200, or I'll get the 300 f4L.

ziggy53 · October 31, 2008

A Canon 1D MKIIN is still a wonderful sports camera and I believe it will out-shoot the 50D in many ways. Coupled with the 70-200mm "L" you already have I believe you would be very happy, especially coming from the XT/350D.

PixNW · October 31, 2008

Thanks Ziggy. Any suggestions on where to find a used one? What about a fair price in good condition, without excessive actuations?

Ann McRae · October 31, 2008

Definitely go for a 1dMkIIN. Absolutely fantastic camera. However, it is 8MP so the 50d is actually the larger in that regard.
Doesn't really matter though - the 8Mp are plenty.

Check our flea market, and the BuySell forum at Fred Miranda(there are 2 1dMkIIN on the front page right now).

ann

Moogle Pepper · October 31, 2008

The 1d IIN without a doubt. Even today, it trounces on the 50D. But well.. maybe not on motorcycle rides. That might pose a problem.

dlplumer · October 31, 2008

In what ways is the 1D superior to the 50D, besides FF.

20DNoob · October 31, 2008

dlplumer wrote:

In what ways is the 1D superior to the 50D, besides FF.

The 1D series is a 1.3 crop, the 1Ds series is the FF.

I'd also go with the Mk IIN just for the weather sealing alone. Coupled with your 70-200 2.8L IS you'll never have to be worried about the rain. I hate having to bag my XXD bodies. Never mind the dual card slots, the higher FPS or the 45 focus points versus the 50Ds' 9.

The only reason I'd consider the 50D would be for the higher ISO capabilities.

Good luck with the decision.

Ann McRae · October 31, 2008

dlplumer wrote:

In what ways is the 1D superior to the 50D, besides FF.

Have you ever seen the side by side comparison that dpreview offers?

It is a cool tool.

Frames per second, write speed, lightening fast auto focus are to die for on the 1dMkIIN. It is a fabulous sports camera.

ann

PixNW · October 31, 2008

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone.

My only stumbling block has been the higher MP on the 50D. There are times when action happens far enough away that I find myself having to crop quite a bit. I haven't tried genuine fractals or anything yet, because most of my images have been okay printed up to 8x10, even with the XT. I can see wanting to do some larger poster type stuff though, and even with not much cropping I'm somewhat worried how 8mp will look larger. Any thoughts on how large I could reasonably go for something like a poster with 8mp, and any software or plugin suggestions would be awesome. I'm currently using Lightroom 1.4 and CS3 for PP.

Why would the Mk II not be suitable to pack on a bike? I know it's larger, but it's built pretty robustly isn't it?

ziggy53 · October 31, 2008

PixNW wrote:

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone.

My only stumbling block has been the higher MP on the 50D. There are times when action happens far enough away that I find myself having to crop quite a bit. I haven't tried genuine fractals or anything yet, because most of my images have been okay printed up to 8x10, even with the XT. I can see wanting to do some larger poster type stuff though, and even with not much cropping I'm somewhat worried how 8mp will look larger. ...

Since you are shooting with an XT you are probably familiar with a relatively high percentage of out-of-focus (OOF) shots due to a relatively slow and under-powered AF section. While the 50D is probably much improved, the 1D MKIIN is in another whole class and still considered one of the fastest and most accurate AF sections on the planet. (I also started with an XT/350D and switched to a 1D MKII for HS football. The keeper rate nearly doubled.)

If you can't get consistant control over AF, the number of megapixels just doesn't matter.

If you have to, rent a 1D MKIIN for a single game to convince yourself.

PixNW · October 31, 2008

If I'm not opposed to spending the extra money, would there be a good reason to not go with a new 1D Mk III? Some of the function control function changes sound like they're worthwhile, and it's a bit higher MP. Thoughts?

Adorama has some Canon refurbished Mk III's, and they save about $900 over new. There is only one review, and it wasn't very positive. The reviewer said he had a few bad pixels, and he's not sure the AF was updated. He said that a good number of them were returned to Canon for faulty AF, and that is why there are so many refurbs available. Are they something to stay away from?

Moogle Pepper · October 31, 2008

PixNW wrote:

Wow, thanks for the thoughtful replies everyone.

My only stumbling block has been the higher MP on the 50D. There are times when action happens far enough away that I find myself having to crop quite a bit. I haven't tried genuine fractals or anything yet, because most of my images have been okay printed up to 8x10, even with the XT. I can see wanting to do some larger poster type stuff though, and even with not much cropping I'm somewhat worried how 8mp will look larger. Any thoughts on how large I could reasonably go for something like a poster with 8mp, and any software or plugin suggestions would be awesome. I'm currently using Lightroom 1.4 and CS3 for PP.

Why would the Mk II not be suitable to pack on a bike? I know it's larger, but it's built pretty robustly isn't it?

Use Genuine fractals or photozoom pro 2. I use it to uprez my photos from my 30D to print 16 x 24 to 24 x 36. and perfectly awesome! {I just ordered an enlarged fotoflot of one of my photos that I just uprezzed.] And my 16 x 24 prints from my old 5 mp G5 still look awesome in big print.

As for why a Mk II not suitable.. are you riding a motorcycle or bicycle? The size may be cumbersome for you, along with the lenses. I know DoctorIT prefers taking his G9 instead of his 30D on motorcycle trips, so I take it from his preferences on that.

ziggy53 · October 31, 2008

PixNW wrote:

If I'm not opposed to spending the extra money, would there be a good reason to not go with a new 1D Mk III? Some of the function control function changes sound like they're worthwhile, and it's a bit higher MP. Thoughts?

Adorama has some Canon refurbished Mk III's, and they save about $900 over new. There is only one review, and it wasn't very positive. The reviewer said he had a few bad pixels, and he's not sure the AF was updated. He said that a good number of them were returned to Canon for faulty AF, and that is why there are so many refurbs available. Are they something to stay away from?

Unfortunately, there is no clear answer. Many people still claim to have problems under some conditions, others claim problems all the time, still others claim no problems (or acceptable results.)

A fairly large number of professional sports photographers use the 1D MKIII and don't seem to have undue OOF problems. I have not found any discussion on Vincent Laforet's blog about extreme issues and he has several.

Rob Galbraith was the original whistle-blower regarding the autofocus issues of the 1D MKIII, but the 1D MKIII is even the prefered sports camera for Rob Galbraith, if you know where to look:

(Compared to the Nikon D3) ... "On the other hand, EOS-1D Mark III files at any ISO - especially CR2s processed through Canon's Digital Photo Professional - are generally slightly crisper and more detailed."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8745-9153

... and (Aug 2008)... "Quality and Cropability The EOS-1D Mark III produces the best overall file of any digital SLR we've ever used. A CR2 coming from this camera contains a level of detail, dynamic range, tonality and quality from each of its 10.01 million image pixels that is hard for any other camera to match on a per-pixel basis. The Nikon D3, for example, produces a better NEF at really high ISO settings (plus very good quality generally), but at lower ISOs it can't quite deliver the fineness of detail from each pixel that the EOS-1D Mark III does.

As a result, the EOS-1D Mark III delivers impressive printed enlargements for a sensor of this resolution, and great cropability too. Click on the thumbnail at right to see an example of how you can pull out a usable photo from this ISO 800 file. The enlarged view is only about 1/6 of the frame. Canon has made the most of every image pixel in this camera."

and ... "These cameras offer more than just great image quality: almost every component in the EOS-1D Mark III and EOS-1Ds Mark III - other than autofocus - is the best Canon has ever developed. But it's the quality of the photos that has kept me coming back."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

While Rob continues to insist that the autofocus is still flawed in the 1D MKIII, he and his cohorts continue to use it over the Nikon D3. I conclude that it must not be all that bad.

Other independant reviewers have tested the 1D MKIII and found that it was perfectly suited to sports.

ziggy53 · October 31, 2008

PixNW wrote:

... There is only one review, and it wasn't very positive. The reviewer said he had a few bad pixels, and he's not sure the AF was updated. He said that a good number of them were returned to Canon for faulty AF, and that is why there are so many refurbs available. Are they something to stay away from?

Specific to this review, "any" camera can be made to display "hot pixels" depending on how the "dark frame" is produced. I don't know that I would put too much emphasis on that one opinion.

PixNW · November 1, 2008

Moogle Pepper wrote:

Use Genuine fractals or photozoom pro 2. I use it to uprez my photos from my 30D to print 16 x 24 to 24 x 36. and perfectly awesome! {I just ordered an enlarged fotoflot of one of my photos that I just uprezzed.] And my 16 x 24 prints from my old 5 mp G5 still look awesome in big print.

As for why a Mk II not suitable.. are you riding a motorcycle or bicycle? The size may be cumbersome for you, along with the lenses. I know DoctorIT prefers taking his G9 instead of his 30D on motorcycle trips, so I take it from his preferences on that.

Thank you for the information on Genuine Fractals and Photozoom Pro 2, and the print sizes. That is extremely helpful information.

I ride motorcycles quite a bit (usually 40-60k miles per year). I have a topbox on my main traveling bike that is dedicated to just photo equipment. I currently take the XT, 70-200 2.8L IS, 24-70 2.8L, 50 1.8, and a 580EX II on most trips, along with haze filters, circ poloarizer, extra battery, etc. It all fits nicely in a Lowepro backback that protects it while on the bike, and that I can easily take along for off bike excursions. Though a 1D body is larger, and weighs more, I've measured, and it will still fit within my current setup. I like the idea of better weather sealing of the 1D as I wouldn't have to be as paranoid about a little moisture and such.

I've been amazed at how much difference the L lenses have made in my images. I'm shooting quite a bit, practicing, learning, and having a blast doing it. I feel like I'm to the point that my lenses are capable of delivering better images than the XT will produce. As Ziggy said, the AF on the XT ends up leaving me with quite a few blurry action shots. I had no idea how much I would enjoy sports photography. I know part of it is because my son plays football. I really enjoy catching action of all types of athletes though. Seeing the reaction of other parents and such when they see a nice action image has been great too. Next year I'll be the league's official photographer, with profits going to support the league. I've been a developer and builder for many years, and our core principal has always been to deliver a great product, as close to perfection as we can make it. I feel that if people will be paying something for some images that I need to make sure they're the best I can reasonably expect to produce. I feel very strongly about our local football program and would really like to help them raise some money.

I'm leaning really strongly towards a new Mk III. It seems that like the L lenses that the full on pro bodies really seem to hold their value pretty well. I look at what IIN's are going for, and what they cost new, and the depreciation seems pretty reasonable. I doubt I'd feel bad down the road if I decided to upgrade.

PixNW · November 1, 2008

ziggy53 wrote:

Unfortunately, there is no clear answer. Many people still claim to have problems under some conditions, others claim problems all the time, still others claim no problems (or acceptable results.)

A fairly large number of professional sports photographers use the 1D MKIII and don't seem to have undue OOF problems. I have not found any discussion on Vincent Laforet's blog about extreme issues and he has several.

Rob Galbraith was the original whistle-blower regarding the autofocus issues of the 1D MKIII, but the 1D MKIII is even the prefered sports camera for Rob Galbraith, if you know where to look:

(Compared to the Nikon D3) ... "On the other hand, EOS-1D Mark III files at any ISO - especially CR2s processed through Canon's Digital Photo Professional - are generally slightly crisper and more detailed."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8745-9153

... and (Aug 2008)... "Quality and Cropability The EOS-1D Mark III produces the best overall file of any digital SLR we've ever used. A CR2 coming from this camera contains a level of detail, dynamic range, tonality and quality from each of its 10.01 million image pixels that is hard for any other camera to match on a per-pixel basis. The Nikon D3, for example, produces a better NEF at really high ISO settings (plus very good quality generally), but at lower ISOs it can't quite deliver the fineness of detail from each pixel that the EOS-1D Mark III does.

As a result, the EOS-1D Mark III delivers impressive printed enlargements for a sensor of this resolution, and great cropability too. Click on the thumbnail at right to see an example of how you can pull out a usable photo from this ISO 800 file. The enlarged view is only about 1/6 of the frame. Canon has made the most of every image pixel in this camera."

and ... "These cameras offer more than just great image quality: almost every component in the EOS-1D Mark III and EOS-1Ds Mark III - other than autofocus - is the best Canon has ever developed. But it's the quality of the photos that has kept me coming back."

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

While Rob continues to insist that the autofocus is still flawed in the 1D MKIII, he and his cohorts continue to use it over the Nikon D3. I conclude that it must not be all that bad.

Other independant reviewers have tested the 1D MKIII and found that it was perfectly suited to sports.

Ziggy, I wish I could convey how grateful I am for you taking the time to post this information. I've scoured the web, and back issues of magazines, but there is no way to find everything out there. It's nice to read what others have said, and very helpful. Thanks for the info and links.

I just re-read an article on the photogs that cover the Superbowl, and it sounds like the most common body is the Mk III. I realize, that just like I could never drive an Indy car like a pro, that the Mk III is capable of delivering images well beyond my skill level. I do like the feeling that I couldn't really outgrow it though, and that as my skills improve I won't run up against too many roadblocks.

It bums me out to know that if I get a Mk III that I'll probably eventually want something longer than 200mm too. I would love to have a 400 2.8, or even the 300 2.8 IS, but they're a lot of money. The 300 4.0 seems like it could be doable though. Maybe I could see how the 1.4x works with my 70-200? I haven't been able to find anything about how the 1.4x works on a Mk III with a 70-200. Any thoughts on how/if the AF would still function?

Thanks again for all of the help and information everyone.

Moogle Pepper · November 1, 2008

Hey we are all in this together to get each other entrenched in buying more and more camera gear! At least that was what the memo I got read...:D

NikonsandVstroms · November 1, 2008

I don't know how important the motorcycle criteria was but both cameras should do it fine as long as you have the space. I had a Nikon D50 which was always in the saddlebag, or on a backpack while riding and it survived that and countless other abuses. Maybe I've been lucky but as long as there is no major trauma I've never had any problems with cameras. So saddlebag, maybe larger tank bag for the 1D, panners, even a backpack, you should be good to go with either

PixNW · November 1, 2008

NikonsandVstroms wrote:

I don't know how important the motorcycle criteria was but both cameras should do it fine as long as you have the space. I had a Nikon D50 which was always in the saddlebag, or on a backpack while riding and it survived that and countless other abuses. Maybe I've been lucky but as long as there is no major trauma I've never had any problems with cameras. So saddlebag, maybe larger tank bag for the 1D, panners, even a backpack, you should be good to go with either

Thanks. I figured it would be robustly built enough to take it, and as I mentioned, the topbox on my main traveling bike (BMW GS) is reserved just for photo equipment. Even my lowly XT has survived well over 100k miles in three countries and still works fine. On a different bike I used to carry some of my camera stuff in a tank bag. I'm no longer much of a fan of tank bags, and especially leaving expensive lenses and such in one when I'm away from the bike. In Mexico last year my alarm went off a few times, and I usually emerged to see someone running the other way.

New 5OD or used 1D for sports?

Comments