Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
 Subscribe
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

300mm 2.8 or Mark III?
Roger Ogden, Photographer
Brookline | NH | USA | Posted: 10:15 AM on 03.15.07
->> I’m currently shooting with 2 – 20d’s. I’ve been waiting for the next 1 series to come out (aka the Mk III) because I’m ready for the best body available. The 20D is a great camera but it’s no longer satisfying my needs for consistently, accurately, and quickly focusing. I do not think there’s anything wrong with my cameras, I’m just asking them to do more than I did a year and ½ ago. Plus, having finer control over iso will help.

Here’s my problem. We’re heading into the spring season and I also need to replace my 300mm F4 and a 300mm 2.8. The f4 does not do well at those late afternoon games.
Doing both is not an option, even on credit.

Here’s my logic trail to my decision.

If I pre-ordered the Mark III, I probably would not get it until mid-May, ½ way through the Spring season. (I do not shoot much in the summer, so it would sit there until Fall.) If I order the 300mm 2.8 I could have it for the entire season, then I could order the Mark III late summer for the first day of Fall. That would also give Canon some time to work the kinks out.

So, I’m thinking I order the 300mm 2.8 now and wait on the Mark III.

Do you agree or have any input?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Brown, Photographer
Greenfield | MA | | Posted: 10:39 AM on 03.15.07
->> Roger,
Not to make it even tougher a decission but.....
I just had to replace my just under two year old 20D because the shutter went bad. Canon says they are only good for around 25,000 images. I had around 75,000 on mine. Just some food fo thought.

Good luck.
Jeff
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Will Powers, Photographer
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 10:41 AM on 03.15.07
->> It sounds like the MKIII is a luxury and the lense is a neccessity. I think your logic is good.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Dan Powers, Photographer
Appleton | WI | USA | Posted: 10:43 AM on 03.15.07
->> If the camera is gonna sit until fall anyway...you just answered your own question...Dan.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Green, Photographer, Photo Editor
Northern | CA | USA | Posted: 10:48 AM on 03.15.07
->> Are you kidding
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (2) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Walter Calahan, Photographer
Westminster | MD | USA | Posted: 10:54 AM on 03.15.07
->> Get the glass man.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Stuart Steele, Photographer
Overland Park | KS | USA | Posted: 11:03 AM on 03.15.07
->> Get the glass...you may run a 20D shutter to its end by then and you'll feel better about the cash for the Mark III. You are in for quite a shock when you change....it will take some time to get used to the controls after getting acclimated to a 20D but the autofocus and the fps will blow you away.....especially on longer glass like a 300 or 400. The 1.6 cropping factor will also give you longer reach on that 300 to shoot tighter. It's also a great piece of glass with a 1.4x on it...you lose a stop but the bokeh is still fantastic.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Louisville | KY | USA | Posted: 11:23 AM on 03.15.07
->> Glass.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Darren Whitley, Photographer
Maryville | MO | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 03.15.07
->> Buy the lens. The camera is just a fancy box.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Brian Shirk, Photographer
McCall | ID | US | Posted: 12:22 PM on 03.15.07
->> The 300/2.8 will make more of a difference in your shooting than a MK III... That, and the extra reach makes a difference too. Spring is also more in the direction of baseball/softball/track as far as sports go, so FPS is much less of an issue until football and basketball come back around.

Before I had my 1d mk II-N, I figured it would make some huge difference in my shooting abilities; long story short, it helps a little with the wide-angle, but doesn't make much of a difference in what I can capture - you adapt to whatever camera you're working with; the glass lets you shoot something you would not previously be able to.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Daniel Tunstall, Photographer
Pearland (Houston) | TX | USA | Posted: 9:47 PM on 03.15.07
->> Get the glass.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Clark Brooks, Photo Editor, Photographer
Urbana | IL | USA | Posted: 10:06 PM on 03.15.07
->> Get the glass. It will be earning you money from now until it falls apart.

however...

you could get both if you find gigs to shoot during the summer to make the Mark III earn it keep as well so you can pay both off sooner. Book three (extra) weddings - cha-ching, the body is paid for, right? If you can't make it work put off the purchase until you need it this fall ~ if you really need it. If it isn't going to help you make more money you might consider sticking with what you have as you'll be more profitable without the new purchase expense. FYI, the FPS doesn't make a big difference - at least in my shooting. 80% of the time I'm shooting low or single frame anyways. IMHO, the reason to upgrade is for the better file quality and better performance at higher ISOs.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Randy Janoski, Photographer
Washington DC & Nashville | TN | USA | Posted: 4:38 PM on 03.16.07
->> Get the glass.

With all new bodies that come out two things usually happen;
First is a tweaking period and second after 6 to 9 months the initial price comes down.

I can understand you want to move up from a prosumer body but keep in mind as far as the "1D" series bodies there are many photographers still using the original. I have a good friend that regularly shoot images for billboards with his.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Ron Bernardo, Photographer
Hamilton | ON | Canada | Posted: 4:58 PM on 03.16.07
->> I'd go for the glass! I am still using 20/30D combo myself but invested on some good lenses.
Just my two cents.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 5:12 PM on 03.16.07
->> Glass any day..

Heck,...a few years ago,..I only wish there would have been a 20D body to work with.. I stuck it out with the D30.. an expensice piece of junk! ..with the old 300.. non IS tgoo.. and I managed to shoot professional outdoor soccer..(somehow) with that combo..

You'll love that lens!!

BTW,... I'm considering selling my mint 400mm f2.8 IS L.. less than a year old.. if anyone is interested..

JP
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Luke Trottier, Photographer
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 6:40 PM on 03.16.07
->> Here is when you know when its time to upgrade to the 1D Mk3, when your losing more sales because of your camera's performance then the cost of a 1D Mk3.

Look for a good deal on a used 1D and get the glass. 3 years from now you will have a $3K lens or a $1K body. The fact that your saying buying both is completely out of your range tells me your not selling enough photos to justify a 1D MK3.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Rodrigo Pena, Photographer
Palm Desert | CA | USA | Posted: 12:46 AM on 03.17.07
->> Psssssst, hey, I've got a Mark III that just fell off the back of a truck, don't listen to those other guys. You can have it for just $10,000!

Just kidding, (sorry for the bad humor).

Glass all the way baby!

By the time next year rolls around the Mark III may drop a grand or so. Or if you want a really good second body, the Mark II's and Mark II N's prices will be dropping like crazy too.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Paul Jordan, Photographer
Rochester | NY | USA | Posted: 11:06 AM on 03.19.07
->> Roger, I did the Mark IIn with 20D as second body thing for awhile. Using that pair was always a bit of a pain for me since the controls, capabilities, batteries, etc. were all different. You will be happy with the 20D's until you use a Mark IIn or (I imagine) IIIn. My 20D is now a third body that my son gets to use.

So, in short, I'd say get the glass now and upgrade bodies when you can see a second (same) body on the horizon. IOW, get the IIIn when you can see a second IIIn (or IIn) within a year or so of getting the first. Shoot with the two 20D's along with the 300 2.8 in the meantime, then suffer the IIIn+20D dance for as short a period as you can stand.

The 300 2.8 is a great piece of glass.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 11:45 AM on 03.19.07
->> Glass. You want better images, not better cameras.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Nick Wright, Photographer, Photo Editor
Independence | KS | USA | Posted: 12:34 PM on 03.19.07
->> Paul, you keep talking about a MarkIIIn ... is there something you're not telling us? ;)
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: 300mm 2.8 or Mark III?
Thread Started By: Roger Ogden
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Coffee tables, libraries, bathrooms are not complete! ::..