| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2005 10:21:04 AM · #1 |
At a recent rugby match I noticed one professional photographer using a 20D....
I have never seen this before it has always been all canon 1D Mk II with the odd Nikon. Makes you think are the cheaper DSLR going to be a force for the pro's.
Also something I can't work out is all these guys were wearing Ricoh vest and shooting with Canon, must some sought of sponsor deal I suppose.I would think Canon would not be real happy?
 |
|
|
|
07/30/2005 10:22:14 AM · #2 |
Haha he's wearing it inside-out :P
|
|
|
|
07/30/2005 10:28:08 AM · #3 |
A lot of Pros use the 20D either as a backup or as main camera...
If Ricoh sponsors the event then Ricoh gets to have its name plastered everywhere...
Can't beat the publicity you get by having hundreds of your big white lenses everywhere though... |
|
|
|
07/30/2005 10:35:08 AM · #4 |
The event organizer provides the vests to its authorized photographers as part of a sponsorship deal. They are required to wear them when working.
R.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2005 10:55:36 AM · #5 |
My initial experiences with the 20d for sports have been positive. The 5fps is actually ok compared to the 3fps of the 10d. 8fps would obviously be even better but I'm not sure that it's worth the extra money. I can't speak for the advanced AF system on the Mark II, but I do keep my focus locked on the center point with the 10d and 20d for sports photography. I can't rely on the AF in all-points mode to work reliably in sports for me.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2005 11:02:16 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by jmsetzler:
My initial experiences with the 20d for sports have been positive. The 5fps is actually ok compared to the 3fps of the 10d. 8fps would obviously be even better but I'm not sure that it's worth the extra money. I can't speak for the advanced AF system on the Mark II, but I do keep my focus locked on the center point with the 10d and 20d for sports photography. I can't rely on the AF in all-points mode to work reliably in sports for me. |
Yeah but there is such a huge difference in price between the 20D and 1D mk II.
Does anyone know what the lenses are in the second photo ? my guess is 400m and I also notice that they seem to tape the lense hood on ?. |
|
|
|
07/30/2005 11:03:06 AM · #7 |
Those are 300mm f/2.8 lenses.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2005 11:16:55 AM · #8 |
| I shoot sports with the 300D and a Canon 70-200 2.8 and it does fine. The 20D is better though for night sporting events and indoor sports though since the noise levels are lower with the tighter pixel configuration. The lense is what really makes the difference here though. The Mark line is awesome, but most of us will never have Pamela Anderson standing in front of us to justify purchasing it. |
|
|
|
07/30/2005 12:30:16 PM · #9 |
I've shot sports (and still do a bit) with my 300D. I wouldn't say it competes with my 1D however. The 20D certainly gets some respect from pros because of its cost. The same is true of the D70. That said, I don't think you'll see most pros laying down their 1DmkIIs just yet.
Edit: The 1.6x crop is also pretty useful.
Message edited by author 2005-07-30 12:32:09.
|
|
|
|
07/30/2005 12:43:27 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by ph223048:
The Mark line is awesome, but most of us will never have Pamela Anderson standing in front of us to justify purchasing it. |
Are you sure :-) |
|
|
|
07/30/2005 12:45:43 PM · #11 |
The ONLY reaon to use a 20D over a 1D MkII on a sporting event is to achive the extra focal length the 1.6x crop factor gives you.
The 1D MkII AI servo is far superior to the 20D's.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 12:11:03 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by terje:
The ONLY reaon to use a 20D over a 1D MkII on a sporting event is to achive the extra focal length the 1.6x crop factor gives you.
The 1D MkII AI servo is far superior to the 20D's. |
That 'extra focal length' doesn't actually get you anything, since the 1Ds MkII has twice the number of pixels available, and the spacial resolution is about the same. You will get exactly the same effect by cropping a 1Ds MkII image down to the same size. |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 12:14:06 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by terje:
The ONLY reaon to use a 20D over a 1D MkII on a sporting event is to achive the extra focal length the 1.6x crop factor gives you. |
Myth - the crop factor is not "zoom" - it's cropped image.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 12:27:18 PM · #14 |
Of note....
It is very likely his 1Ds Mark II was in the shop for repairs or being used at another event elsewhere...so he was running his back-up. And the 20D is a good back-up as it's inexpensive and will get you thru in a pinch.
Message edited by author 2005-08-01 12:28:29.
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 12:28:29 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
It is very likely his 1Ds Mark II was in the shop for repairs... |
1D Mk II would be better for sports, I'd think. I sure don't want a 1Ds except to impress my friends with.
M
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 12:29:38 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Zed Pobre:
That 'extra focal length' doesn't actually get you anything, since the 1Ds MkII has twice the number of pixels available, and the spacial resolution is about the same. You will get exactly the same effect by cropping a 1Ds MkII image down to the same size. |
This was my exact line of thinking and I argued this same line of thought here on DPC once. It took a few replies before the actual difference sunk in. Which is basically this:
Yes, the 1Ds MkII has more pixels. But it doesn't have 1.6x^2 times as many pixels.
In other words, the 20D has 8.3 pixels at a crop factor of 1.6. So that means that to have the same "density" in the number of pixels per square millimeter, you would have to multiply 8.3 times 1.6 squared (i.e. 21.3 mp).
The point is... if you take a picture from a 1Ds MkII and crop it down to match a 20D image, you will have LESS than 8.3mp in the image.
Thus, in a contest to get the highest resolution of a distant object using a given lens ... the 20D wins by virtue of its higher density pixel count.
Would I still like to have the 1Ds MkII full frame sensor??? ABSOLUTELY!
|
|
|
|
08/01/2005 04:26:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Yes, the 1Ds MkII has more pixels. But it doesn't have 1.6x^2 times as many pixels.
In other words, the 20D has 8.3 pixels at a crop factor of 1.6. So that means that to have the same "density" in the number of pixels per square millimeter, you would have to multiply 8.3 times 1.6 squared (i.e. 21.3 mp).
The point is... if you take a picture from a 1Ds MkII and crop it down to match a 20D image, you will have LESS than 8.3mp in the image. |
True in the absolute sense, but in terms of visible result, I'd be extremely surprised if you could tell the difference between a print made from 16.7 MP and from an effective 21.3 MP (or more exactly, between the D20 8.3 MP and the 1Ds cropped 6.5 MP).
Note that I'll grant that you could probably do visibly better on forced crops with a Nikon D2X, which is sticking over 12 MP on a 24mm sensor, but the difference in spacial resolution between the 20D and 1Ds MkII is too small for me to be less than skeptical about any serious improvement in performance. |
|
|
|
08/01/2005 04:30:47 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by mavrik:
Originally posted by terje:
The ONLY reaon to use a 20D over a 1D MkII on a sporting event is to achive the extra focal length the 1.6x crop factor gives you. |
Myth - the crop factor is not "zoom" - it's cropped image. |
Firstly, Terje didn't say it "zoom".
Secondly, considering both cameras are 8MP, the 20D provides a more telephoto resultant image, pixel by pixel.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/20/2025 12:06:12 AM EDT.
