The 40D is an awesome camera, and there are things that I like about it over the 50D (lower pixel density for one). There will be plenty of Canon and Nikon users to help you along the way, whichever brand you choose.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
In Need of a Cheap Lens for Sports
- Thread starter Dmac77
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 40D is an awesome camera, and there are things that I like about it over the 50D (lower pixel density for one). There will be plenty of Canon and Nikon users to help you along the way, whichever brand you choose.
Definitely go with the camera you feel most comfortable with. For me, that was Nikon. Canon is the choice for a lot of photographers, as Grimace mentioned. You'll have no shortage of help, that's for sure.
Thanks. I'm still kicking myself for buying the D60 last year. It's been a great camera, and it has taught me a lot about photography. The D90 just didn't feel right to me, whereas the 50D felt right. I'll probably order the 40D within a few days.
Don
Looks like you solved your problem! If you have access to those white Canons, there's NO QUESTION what you should be doing. Either switch to Canon xxD series (or whatever that middle-tier line is called in the States) or just buy ANY 2nd hand Canon body that you can find dirt cheap on eBay.
Sports lens needs to be fast, and fast glass is expensive. You don't have that budget, let's be honest, so your best bet is to use the lenses already available to you -- all you need is a compatible body.
Buy one, end of story.
I have to second the comment that you should use what you feel most comfortable with. If you ponder of switching to Canon, borrow a Canon body from one of your friends in the photography club. Take out a few lenses and see what you can do with them. If you don't feel comfortable with the equipment, forget about it (for most users, this is the single most important aspect that determines the quality of your photos (≠image quality)). If you think you like the feel of Canons, switching is indeed an option.
I'd go more with the changing of settings while shooting- I don't think I go to the menu of my camera more than half a dozen times a year, but I switch settings with buttons almost every time I shoot. The ability to change the settings I need without taking my eye from the viewfinder is very important to me.
You don't stand to lose much at this point in switching, I'd advise you to do it, as the type of shooting you're wanting to do is more geared towards expensive glass than most anything. There's no point in getting glass when you can use someone else's.
Go for the Canon if you like the feel better, that's very important when you're going to be trying to shoot action; you need your camera to be as close an extension of your brain as possible so you can focus on capturing the images rather than futzing with settings you're not familiar/comfortable with.
Now for your question about IS, don't worry too much about it. I generally have it turned off on my 70-200 nikkor except during portraits. For sports and action, if you need IS you aren't shooting a high enough shutter speed to get the job done anyway. (just my 2 cents). If the Canon 70-200 is anywhere as fast operating as the Nikkor, you'll be in business, in that case, forget about the Sigma.
SLC
Now for your question about IS, don't worry too much about it. I generally have it turned off on my 70-200 nikkor except during portraits. For sports and action, if you need IS you aren't shooting a high enough shutter speed to get the job done anyway. (just my 2 cents). If the Canon 70-200 is anywhere as fast operating as the Nikkor, you'll be in business, in that case, forget about the Sigma.
SLC