Canon 5d mkiv for sport

Messages
356
Edit My Images
No
As the title suggests is anybody using the 5d mkiv for sport in a pro / semi pro capacity
My thinking behind it is as follows
The 1d x mkii is way two expensive and I would not recoup the outlay
The 1dx although more robust etc is getting to the stage of being old technoligy
 
You don’t mention what ‘Sports’ you are photographing?


I went through this two years ago with the 5D III and the biggest issue was the frames per second! Great camera and footed the bill bar the FPS. Obviously the 5D IV is much better but still not 12 – 14 FPS of the 1DX. For most sports the 1D IV would suffice, I regret selling mine, but the extreme poor light that this country suffers in winter can often be too much for the limited ISO especially when used indoors!

I think you are being very hard on the 1DX, have you used one for any length of time? Knowing what I know now I would plump for a used 1DX before a 5D as it has the FPS, adequate file size, good ISO and weather proof.
 
1D X because 400,000 shutter life expectancy, really durable body, battery 1500 shots and insane fps. Its hell of a machine.
 
As the title suggests is anybody using the 5d mkiv for sport in a pro / semi pro capacity
My thinking behind it is as follows
The 1d x mkii is way two expensive and I would not recoup the outlay
The 1dx although more robust etc is getting to the stage of being old technoligy

Well if video isn't a concern then the only thing the 5D4 has going for it is the 30MP sensor. It's a very nice camera but I would take a 1DX over it every time for sports photography. As Jim has pointed out knowing what sports you intend to photograph would be helpful.

The 1DX MkII is a better camera than the 1DX but it's incremental and some of the improvements for me are the greater versatility it has over the 1DX but that's probably specific to the way I like to set my camera up and use it.
 
Both can do the job - but if its traditional field type sports, then the 1dx would be the better choice due the robustness. IMHO there is a lot of worry abut the 'lack' of FPS in cameras like the 5d4, but they still have far more speed than we used to use back in the film days, and make you think more rather than spray and pray.

If you're thinking more 'sports portraiture' or more controlled shooting without the need for weather protection, then maybe a 5d4 would be the better choice.

Another vote for the 1dx having a lot of years left in it - most of the people I know who use the mk2 say the IQ increase is negligeable with the newer body, and not a significant reason to upgrade. It has improved AF with the latest mark ii superteles and converters but the 1dx is far from a slouch.

Mike
 
but they still have far more speed than we used to use back in the film days, and make you think more rather than spray and pray.


5 thousand pounds for a pro camera aimed at pro sports user... lets add a spray and pray option for them ?

or maybe that's not what it is ?

sigh :(
 
Can't beat a bit of spray and pray. Sometimes it's the only option.
 
If I shoot cricket and i want the batsman hitting the ball I can pretty much time it well.. but if he misses and the ball hits the stumps with bails flying ..I miss the shot unless i shoot a burst.. thats me thinking about the shot..putting thought in.. not spray and pray.. To read less fps makes you think about the shot ratehr than spray and pray is insulting...

even a simple shot of a player running towards you.. easy? what if the second you shoot he blinks.. you go home with he one shot and find his eyes shut and have to dump the picture..

I can give you loads of examples where thinking does go into using a higher frame rate.. i dont need to be told that not having it makes you think about the shot...

hate the term spray and pray :(
 
If I shoot cricket and i want the batsman hitting the ball I can pretty much time it well.. but if he misses and the ball hits the stumps with bails flying ..I miss the shot unless i shoot a burst.. thats me thinking about the shot..putting thought in.. not spray and pray.. To read less fps makes you think about the shot ratehr than spray and pray is insulting...

even a simple shot of a player running towards you.. easy? what if the second you shoot he blinks.. you go home with he one shot and find his eyes shut and have to dump the picture..

I can give you loads of examples where thinking does go into using a higher frame rate.. i dont need to be told that not having it makes you think about the shot...

hate the term spray and pray :(

That's the difference between you and a lot of us Kipax. You can watch the game and the action and think about what's happening and what you want to do. I'm of the when in doubt let it rip category sometimes.
 
That's the difference between you and a lot of us Kipax. You can watch the game and the action and think about what's happening and what you want to do. I'm of the when in doubt let it rip category sometimes.


I was at a boxing evening and asked the bloke next to me if he was making a video......haha none stop :)
 
Maybe you work that way, but its not the only way, you only have to listen to the sounds at any high level sports now to hear the length of bursts being used to realise that whether you like the term or not - its what happening.

I was shooting top level sport back in the film days for high end agencies - back when you had to learn to time shots whilst using everything manually, and when 6fps was seen as excessive - and most of the time it is. Even running at 1/1000th 12fps you miss over 98% of the action in a second. We did OK and there was good money to be made until digital landed in a serious way, which unsurprisingly was the same time that the weekend warriors landed at football grounds.

No doubt the modern cameras make the technical side easier, and I'm not being a dinosaur - I will use full speed on my 1dx in situations for birds in flight - but it should not be the sole reason for a camera choice.

Anyway, I've offered my advice to the OP, anything else is just willy waving

Sad you felt the need to take this off topic - apologies to Blue Marlin.

Mike
 
Maybe you work that way, but its not the only way, you only have to listen to the sounds at any high level sports now to hear the length of bursts being used to realise that whether you like the term or not - its what happening.

I was shooting top level sport back in the film days for high end agencies - back when you had to learn to time shots whilst using everything manually, and when 6fps was seen as excessive - and most of the time it is. Even running at 1/1000th 12fps you miss over 98% of the action in a second. We did OK and there was good money to be made until digital landed in a serious way, which unsurprisingly was the same time that the weekend warriors landed at football grounds.

You might have been shooting top level sport but I'll tell you one thing for nothing - the images captured and published today are generally better than those from the mid 1990s and certainly better than those from the pre-1970s era (ever noticed how few action shots of the World Cup Final in 1966 exist?)

FPS speeds are higher and as a result more peak action is captured.

As for the long bursts that you are hearing...


...those are from some of the top sports photographers in the world. I'd criticise them at your peril because they knew what they were doing when you were shooting and they still do now.
 
I might even suggest a 5d3 as an option, not massive in the FPS arena but depends on what sport and how semi professional? Save a few quid get a MK2 lens now and upgrade to a 1dx2 later?
Matt
 
You might have been shooting top level sport but I'll tell you one thing for nothing - the images captured and published today are generally better than those from the mid 1990s and certainly better than those from the pre-1970s era (ever noticed how few action shots of the World Cup Final in 1966 exist?)

FPS speeds are higher and as a result more peak action is captured.

As for the long bursts that you are hearing...


...those are from some of the top sports photographers in the world. I'd criticise them at your peril because they knew what they were doing when you were shooting and they still do now.

I agree with what you're saying, I wasn't trying to start a childish tit for tat here. However, I'm sure you'd find that the top photographers nowadays who regularly produce the original award winning angles and shots do so with imagination over high FPS.

If you go back to my original post that hit a raw nerve with Kipax then I gave a couple of options for the OP to mull over depending upon what he is intending to shoot, but Kipax decided to do the classic TP selective quote thing to try and make a point - the same point he was laughing about in one of his later posts about the boxing.

I'm also sure that the top shooters nowadays would still be producing the goods at 6-7 fps, its the lesser skilled shooters who'd struggle. I have lots of respect for the top level shooters, its not an easy genre to be a stand out performer in nowadays due to the amount of work produced and the saturation.

As I said above, albeit commenting on wildlife shooting, I'm not saying there isn't a time for 12fps, but it would be good to know the intended sports to shoot, along with the intended use of the shots before deciding on what is the best camera for the OP's use.

Mike
 
I agree with what you're saying, I wasn't trying to start a childish tit for tat here. However, I'm sure you'd find that the top photographers nowadays who regularly produce the original award winning angles and shots do so with imagination over high FPS.

If you go back to my original post that hit a raw nerve with Kipax then I gave a couple of options for the OP to mull over depending upon what he is intending to shoot, but Kipax decided to do the classic TP selective quote thing to try and make a point - the same point he was laughing about in one of his later posts about the boxing.

I'm also sure that the top shooters nowadays would still be producing the goods at 6-7 fps, its the lesser skilled shooters who'd struggle. I have lots of respect for the top level shooters, its not an easy genre to be a stand out performer in nowadays due to the amount of work produced and the saturation.

As I said above, albeit commenting on wildlife shooting, I'm not saying there isn't a time for 12fps, but it would be good to know the intended sports to shoot, along with the intended use of the shots before deciding on what is the best camera for the OP's use.

Mike


your last post said lets leave it at that and I did..let you have the last word.. i didnt mind and happy to leave it at that..... now your having more digs at me ... any chance of you stopping ?
 
FFS.
Matt
 
Don't flatter yourself, I wasn't replying to you - but go on, have the next post on me - I'm out

you mentioned me twice in your post.. hows that not having a dig.. it's there for all to see ?
 
Thanks for the input
I shoot pro footy, rugby and cricket mainly.
At the moment not sure which way to jump ether 2 x s/h 1Dx or 1s/h 1Dx & a 5d mkiv
The 5d would be on the 400 f2.8
Got to say am a bit worried about the 5d's 7fps
Either way it's a lot of money to claw back given the present state of the market place but that topic has been done to death and it's not going to change and it only raises my BP
But would like to compare some images shot with A 5d mkiv if anybody has a link to a web site
 
Thanks for the input
I shoot pro footy, rugby and cricket mainly.
At the moment not sure which way to jump ether 2 x s/h 1Dx or 1s/h 1Dx & a 5d mkiv
The 5d would be on the 400 f2.8
Got to say am a bit worried about the 5d's 7fps
Either way it's a lot of money to claw back given the present state of the market place but that topic has been done to death and it's not going to change and it only raises my BP
But would like to compare some images shot with A 5d mkiv if anybody has a link to a web site

I can link to wildlife images shot with a1DX, 1DX MkII and a 5D4 at a variety of ISOs but not really sure if that will be much help.
 
The 5d mk4 still does not have a the Kevlar shutter designed for pro work, it will fail under pro work stress IMO
 
Maybe you work that way, but its not the only way, you only have to listen to the sounds at any high level sports now to hear the length of bursts being used to realise that whether you like the term or not - its what happening.

I was shooting top level sport back in the film days for high end agencies - back when you had to learn to time shots whilst using everything manually, and when 6fps was seen as excessive - and most of the time it is. Even running at 1/1000th 12fps you miss over 98% of the action in a second. We did OK and there was good money to be made until digital landed in a serious way, which unsurprisingly was the same time that the weekend warriors landed at football grounds.

No doubt the modern cameras make the technical side easier, and I'm not being a dinosaur - I will use full speed on my 1dx in situations for birds in flight - but it should not be the sole reason for a camera choice.

Anyway, I've offered my advice to the OP, anything else is just willy waving

Sad you felt the need to take this off topic - apologies to Blue Marlin.

Mike
You make a very good point with the FPS even with my 1d mkiv set I have at the moment I tend not to keep my finger on the button so to speck I think it goes back to my film days when I had to supply my one film which is why I am looking at the 5d mkiv
May have to pop into a retailer and bang one on the 400.
It makes me smile when I see people submitting over 100 images to their agency.
 
This week I tried shooting indoor athletics with 5DM3 and 4. The results were quite good but I think more fps and buffer would allow you to get the peak action more reliably.
 
Back
Top