Is the 550D Rebel T2i fast enough?

[JerseyGirl]

Hello:

Looking for some advice. I used to shoot with a 35mm have taken lots of wildlife photos, safari in Africa etc. with film. However, am new to the digital world. Have a point and shoot but ready to upgrade and get back into photography more in depth again.

I mainly willl be shooting action shots of dogs and animals. Agility and stockwork etc. Will the 3.7 fps be fast enough that the 550d offers or do I need to go up to a 50D? I really like a lot of what the 550d offers as it has many features they seem to have improved over the 50d in terms as its features or close to the 7d. However, I do not have the cash for teh 7d and given that I am just getting back into this and digital to boot, I don't want a camera that will frustrate me more than allow me to learn and grow. That being said, when in Africa I had an all manual camera, as far as focus was concerned. Many of my photos are useless as they are blury. I do not want to make that mistake again.

What would be the minimum speed and ISO you would want for action photos. Will be in good light for the most part with some at dusk. Obviously faster is better but given money constraints what would you suggest. Also is the price of the 550d close enough to just get the 50d or are the new features worth it. Also, I realize better lenses are important so with a good lense and slower fps are you better off than faster fps and less optimum lens?

Thank you.

JG

[inkista]

I shoot with a 50D and I like it, but you're probably right in that the 550D is newer technology that improves on the sensor performance of the 50D. So if image quality (and video) are your priorieties, the 550D is probably a better choice. If usabilty and hardiness are your priorities, then you want the 50D. The controls on the 50D do make it better for action shooting, but the 550D is no slouch in that department.

For me, I find that while the higher frame rate can make a difference, it's slighter than some people think. And if you have no lenses, I'd say you want to pay more money up front in the pain of getting a good lens for wildlife, first. With a cheap lens on an expensive body, you have almost no chance. With a good fast USM lens on a cheap body, you've actually got one, albeit narrower than the one you'd have with a fast USM lens on a higher-tiered body.

I shot birds in flight for four years with an old 350D and the $1k EF 400mm f/5.6L USM. It got a little better with the 50D, but part of that was due to the fact that my 350D didn't have spot metering (which the 550D does have).

What's more important than the frame rate, really, is how good is your sense of timing? And how good is your anticipation/imagining the next shot? The other bit, as you discovered, is how fast is your autofocus? There, the lens can help. A wider max. aperture gives the AF system more light to "see" by. A USM motor can shove the elements around a little faster. A focus limit switch can cut down the search "range" for focus lock. And, most of all, mastering back-button autofocus will put you in full charge of when the AF hunts and when it doesn't.

All of these things, a 550D can do--with the right lens. I'd say get the 550D (or 500D if you need to save the pennies), and save up for a good telephoto or supertelephoto lens with USM (or if you're looking at Sigma lenses, HSM), instead of, say, a 50D with an el cheapo 75-300 III.

[ddr]

Originally Posted by inkista

And, most of all, mastering back-button autofocus will put you in full charge of when the AF hunts and when it doesn't.

good stuff.

[rajpradhan]

I have bought 550D recently. Switched over from NikonD90 and I can say that the switch is worthwhile. I shoot birds. D90 was fast enough but 550D is fatser. Only limiting factor would be the lens. Get a good fast lens and you should do alright.

550D's 3.7 fps is slower than 8 fps of EOS 7D. But like inkista said above, it is the photographer's sense of timing that is crucial.

[JerseyGirl]

Rajendra:

Interesting what you say about the speed, what are you taking into account for the 550D as being faster. I was looking at the fps and the 550D is listed at 3.7 and Nikon D90 is 4.5 at least the info I have. Are you looking at the ISO speed too, I wasn't counting that for action. What else am I not considering when I think of the speed of the camera, body only not considering the lens?

JG

[rajpradhan]

I meant ISO wise.