I can't decide and my brain hurts already.

[poipounder]

Hi guys,

My purpose is for sports photography, (soccer).
Currently I have an xti 10mp (shoots 3fps) with an 55-250 f4-5.6 lens.

I want to upgrade the body and lens.

Do I upgade to -
40d - 10mp 6.5 fps
50d - 15mp 6.3fps. better LCD and other minor stuff.
7d - 18mp 8fps same lcd as 50d. Better focusing, HD video

Lens -
70-300 4-5.6 is, - Cheaper, Good IQ, smaller
70-200 2.8 non is with 1.4x tc. - Super fast 2.8. Great IQ, But bigger and expensive.


I dont have enough money to buy the 7d and the 70-200.

Thanks in advance

[RecurrentNerve]

I'd get 50d + 70-300. Megapixels mean nothing. If you want HD video get a video camera. IS is very useful at long focal lengths.

[OsmosisStudios]

Depends on what you're shooting.

[kuvahmagh]

Originally Posted by poipounder

Hi guys,

My purpose is for sports photography, (soccer).
Currently I have an xti 10mp (shoots 3fps) with an 55-250 f4-5.6 lens.

I want to upgrade the body and lens.

Do I upgade to -
40d - 10mp 6.5 fps
50d - 15mp 6.3fps. better LCD and other minor stuff.
7d - 18mp 8fps same lcd as 50d. Better focusing, HD video

Lens -
70-300 4-5.6 is, - Cheaper, Good IQ, smaller
70-200 2.8 non is with 1.4x tc. - Super fast 2.8. Great IQ, But bigger and expensive.


I dont have enough money to buy the 7d and the 70-200.

Thanks in advance

In terms of Body, how big do you print, if your doing 8x10s at most then megapixels don't really mean that much, they help but there are other factors.

How much of the soccer you want to shoot is at night vs the day? The 40 and 50D are not nearly so good as the 7D at higher ISOs. Obviously if you want to shoot video then the 7D is your only option here.

In terms of lenses, you can also look at a Sigma 70-200 2.8 HSM lens for a few hundred less than its cannon equivalent, the non IS 70-200 2.8. Also correct me if I'm wrong but that tele-converter will decrease the aperture so you won't get the 2.8 with it.

On another likely more important point, do you find your current lens fast enough for what you are doing, if you shoot only in the day with the sun and it works fine then the 70-300 might be better since it keeps the aperture range and gives you another 50mm, that of course assumes you are not satisfied with your 55-250.

All of that said, if it were me I would probably keep the XTI and invest my money in the Cannon 70-200 IS 2.8. I think that will be the best long term investment, 3fps is still pretty fast and it is really easy to get caught up chasing the latest and greatest body. I shoot auto racing with 3fps and while I wish it was faster I do alright, I miss somethings but soccer shouldn't be too fast for 3 fps, unless of course your a pro whose next meal could depend on whether or not he gets the shots.

[poipounder]

Thanks for the responces people

I know megapixels are not uber important for printing, but I does come in handy for one important thing, cropping.

I will shoot mosty daytime soccer, I know I dont need a 2.8 for that, but with the 1.4x, it will increase the 200mm to a 280mm and the f2.8 to a very reasonable f4. From what I have read, the IQ doesnt change that much. And I will have virtually 2 exceptional "L" lenses. But that would have to mean I would have to settle for the 50D due to lack of funds. (no disrespect for the 50D).

I do need (want) a faster camera fps wise. I have been using my xti for my daughters soccer, and its amazing how much the body position changes in between the 3fps. And for "kuvahmagh" you say your xti is adequate because you take pics of racing cars. I took a look at your flikr page, I agree with you, an xti is adequate for taking pics of objects that dont change in shape but move side to side. Im not a professional, but if I'm gonna do something, I want to do it the best I can, and for me, 3fps is not cutting it. So 6fps at least.

So it sound like im headed for the 50D, but, the ablity to take video, is a very nice convenience. They have been times where I've said to myself, boy I wish I brought my video camera also. Not to take a 30min video, but for certain unexpected situations that a video would be better than a photo. So now the question is - how good is the video on the 7D? I have posted that question to 7D owners on a different messege board and for the vast majority, they all say its great. Some dont even bother to use it, to which I fully understand. But to me its a waste not to learn how to use it if you already own the camera. Its a avenue to capture a moment impossible for a photo to reproduce.

So the conclusion is 7D with a 70-300. And I have debated on if my 55-250 is adequate for me now, but from my research, the 70-300 has a better build, IQ, and the 50mm extra reach doesnt hurt too. I've also heard it say thats its an "L" glass in disquise. So the 70-300 it is.



but wait, isnt the 60D due to come out soon? Crap lol.