# Need help. Canon 60D for sports--is it better to pony up for the 7D?



## RocklandDragon (Mar 5, 2013)

I have a Canon 60D camera and I got it last week. So far, it has been great and the pictures have been impressive for the most part. It does have some trouble with night shots but I believe that is due to me. I'm still a novice at photo shooting. I had a Sony DSLR camera and it took decent shots on stills but a blur during fast action and I could never get it totally right. I can learn the Canon 60Dbut and I have been finding success with day shots and video recording with manual focus.

I think the 60D is a good camera but as football season approaches, it may not be enough. I like watching High School football games across the state and it has become a great hobby of mine. I like taking photos of the different stadiums, different settings, different elements, and the game action. Would it be better to go ahead and get the 7D? Many high school stadiums are not well lit and the 7D from what I read is good for sports and should handle the low light situations better than the 60D. Also, I hear the 7D can handle the elements better.

The 7D is $500 higher than the 60D. Compact Flash cards arent as prominent as SDHC or SDXC cards and seem to be a lot higher. It's a pretty big investment for me and I can scrap to get the 7D but is it worth it? Both cameras are getting replacements, I believe, this year. I dont think the 7D will be getting much cheaper than what it is but I could be wrong. I plan to have the Canon 60D or 7D for a couple of years, unless the newer 7D model is simply too good to pass up.

What do y'all think? Is the 7D worth the higher cost over the 60D? I'm not worried about the learning curve and can handle the effort and time it takes to make the 7D or 60D good for sports photography. Also, what lens do you recommend and is it better just to 
get the body kit for the 7D and save up for a great lens. The 7D at Best Buy has a 18-135mm IS lens but the body kit is $300 less.

Thanks everyone. Feedback would be appreciated.
8)


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 5, 2013)

The AF system on 7D is MUCH MORE adv. than 60D. You can track your subject(s) way better. It will require some pratices.

If sport is your thing then: 
1. 7D - good AF for tracking, not so good in lower light
2. 5D III - Super AF, very good in lower light - decent fps
3. 1D X - SUPER in everything - PRICE TAG???

4. DON'T FORGET ABOUT "L" LENSES. Get 135L, fast and sharp for sports. Decent price.

Canon 7D, AF System.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Mar 5, 2013)

you have a week old 60D - if you're going to sell it, sell it now before the 70D (or whatever it's going to
be called) is announced. Also, the 7D is old and also due to be replaced this year. Learn to use what you have - the camera's just the tool. If you have to spend money and you want to shoot sports - get the 70-300L, short enough for court sports, long enough for field sports. Work with higher ISO ratings
to compensate for smaller aperatures. Waterproof? A 25 cent plastic baggie doesn't look so "pro" but it sure protects the camera.


----------



## ITshooter (Mar 5, 2013)

The 7D is better, but not necessarily for the reasons you cited.

First, low light. The 7D is not a great performer here. It has two image processors whereas the 60D has only one, but I've never noticed a difference in noise levels at higher ISOs-- which is what you'll probably use for football. Since most high school games take place in the evening, and because you'll need a high shutter speed to freeze action, you'll be living above ISO 800 virtually all of the time, over ISO 1600 some of the time, and occasionally up to ISO 3200 if you're really in a pinch. Having owned a 60D and shot with a 7D, I wouldn't use ISO 6400 unless your final output will be pretty small; the noise is distracting by that point. ISO 3200 isn't stellar but can be cleaned up in post. ISO 1600 is the highest level at which I consider detail and noise acceptable without some involved post work. But to return to your original question, I think low light performance is a wash between the two cameras.

Ruggedness and build quality-- the 7D wins. If you're rough on gear, it might be worth upgrading. I believe the 7D also has a more durable shutter, which could matter if you're keeping the camera for several years. That said, the 60D's build quality is unfairly derided. It's not magnesium alloy, but its solid, has some weather sealing, and (unless you've been carting around 1-series bodies for years) never feels like a toy. I have a T2i, a 60D and a 5D Mark III, and the 60D handles more like its big brother than its littler sibling. 

To me, the differentiating factor for you is probably autofocus. Before I upgraded to a 5D Mark III, I shot semi-professionally with 60D, and I found its autofocus perfectly adequate-- assuming your timing is decent and that you're comfortable moving around the focus point (easy to do without lowering the camera from your eyes) in situations when the camera's tracking algorithms aren't up to the task. The 7D's autofocus shares more DNA with the upmarket 5D Mark III and 1DX than it does with the 60D. For a sport like football, that could make a big difference.

Burst rate is another big one. The 60D does 5.6 frames per second whereas the 7D does 8 frames per second. I've found the 60D to be _just_ fast enough for sports. But the "perfect moment" arrives and vanishes in an instant, so having 30% more frames for every burst is an advantage. If you do a lot of burst shooting, you should consider buffer as well-- pretty sure the 7D is better.

Unless one of the above comments sold you on the 7D, I think the 60D plus a solid lens might be a better option for your needs. Shooting in dim light at high ISOs and high shutter speeds demands a bright lens. The 18-135 is convenient in its range but deficient on the aperture requirement, especially at the tele end (which you'll probably use more). Speaking of the tel end, if you're shooting the action from the stands, 135mm might not be long enough for you. It's not exactly a budget lens, but a used 200mm f2.8 might be a good option. You might find one for $600 - $700, you'll get the effective reach of a 320mm lens, and you'll have the brightest aperture you can get at a tele length without paying a fortune. In you're shooting sports at night, 60D + 200mm f2.8 > 7D + 18-135mm, in my opinion.

That said, if can find a way to delay your decision until the end of the month, the 70D might solve all your problems. It will probably be a little more expensive than the 7D's current price, but I expect it to be better for your needs than either of the cameras you're considering. Hope this helps.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2013)

I wouldn't worry too much, photographers managed to photograph sports with manual focus lenses for far more years than AF bodies have existed.

You can potentially do fancy things like track a moving player and keep him in focus with a 7D, and AF in low light is very good, but not great.

A Refurb 7D is a excellent value, and may hold its value better than a 60D. It is certainnly a more capable camera.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 5, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> I think the 60D is a good camera but as football season approaches, it may not be enough.



It's simple, really - if you do af *tracking* the 60d is bad simply because there are too few focus points that are too far apart - plus the firmware has zero customability for tracking so the camera tends to loose focus fast if you don't stay on target all the time.

That being said, you can also shoot action on servo af with the 60d - but either your target has to fill most of the screen to use not only one af point, or it's horizontal movement, or your depth of field is not very thin (like f5.6+).

Still, with the 60d you get best results if you refocus all the time and shoot short bursts (maybe a 3x bracket with +-0.5ev) - the ~6fps is fast enough and the buffer is deep enough to be adequate.


----------



## shinjuku-thief (Mar 6, 2013)

As 60D owner who likes to shoot sports on occasions (soccer), you _can_ get some good shots with it.

If you'd asked this question before you'd bought the camera, I'd say go for a 7D - a second hand one considering it's going to be superseded within the next 6 months. However, as the 60D is already in your hands I'd say hang on to it til you feel you are being held back by it.

Why? Because you'll take a loss on selling the 60D plus the price difference with the 7D - that $500-$700 would be better put towards a decent lens, a lens that you can use with your next body when you are ready to take the plunge again. Good glass helps tremendously as you can keep your shutter speed up high whilst at the same time having enough light to expose the subject correctly or to go for a narrow depth of field to isolate an athlete. A 70-200 f/2.8 IS (I or II) helps produce excellent images, even on a 60D.

I understand that there are better bodies out there for sports, but for a novice the 60D is acceptable. With the better AF you will get more keepers with a 7D, and with more focus points you won't be as constrained with your framing. However, as you become more experienced, you'll get more and more keepers and better and better shots, than you may currently.


----------



## robbymack (Mar 6, 2013)

I think you answered your own question when you mentioned it is a big investmemt and youd have to scrape together some cash for a 7d. You'll take a bath on the 60d. Honestly your much better off taking the time to learn your camera and then decide what's holding you back then to make a rash decision based on inane "specs" which won't in any way make you a better photographer. Right now your biggest bottleneck is probably the kit lens you'll be using. It's fine for what it is, but if you work on your skills you'll likely find that its the lens not the camera holding you back. By then you'll have a good feel for what you want and won't just be throwing good money after bad.


----------



## helpful (Mar 6, 2013)

From someone who knows, let me say that you can't effectively use a 60D for sports. You could set it someplace ahead of the action and perhaps get one frame if you practiced. That's if you were lucky.

I tried using the 60D and the 5D Mark II for sports. Maybe they could suffice for someone who didn't have my standards, but for me they were worthless. However great they are, they simply could not get photos when it counted. You can get perhaps one good shot per game with the 60D or the 5D Mark II. The standards my job requires are to get one good shot per play. That's a huge contrast.

On the other hand, the 7D is way up near the top of sports cameras. Only in bad lighting does the picture quality decrease. And even then it isn't that bad because you can still boost the ISO very high, albeit with a lot of graininess. But the AF system still keeps up. Compared to graininess, getting the shot and getting it in focus is way more important. The 7D can do both, and the 60D cannot do either one.


----------



## Imagination_landB (Mar 6, 2013)

helpful said:


> From someone who knows, let me say that you can't effectively use a 60D for sports. You could set it someplace ahead of the action and perhaps get one frame if you practiced. That's if you were lucky.


I respectfully disagree with this, I have a 60D and I've shot many football and hockey games, also people running and never had a problem with the autofocus even in very poorly light environments.. I simply don't understand why you say that. Ok you have the 1dx but don't compare apples and oranges.. 7d is better for sports indeed, but if you master your camera, you do get the shots when it count. 60D is a great camera but for now I would wait to buy a new aps-c camera..


----------



## -Jarred- (Mar 6, 2013)

I think the 60D will be adequate. The 7D will give you a higher hit rate of in focus shots. I say hold on to the 60D for a year, then look at upgrading to a 7DII a few months after if/when it gets released to give it a chance for a price drop. In the meantime start saving for that 70-200 2.8 IS II


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 6, 2013)

helpful said:


> I tried using the 60D and the 5D Mark II for sports. Maybe they could suffice for someone who didn't have my standards, but for me they were worthless.



This: *your* standard, but what is the op's? It's all all about keeper rate, so 5d2 < 60d < 7d < 5d3 < 1d4 < 1dx ... if you have the highest standards you are also wrong with the 7d and should get a 1d ff with the appropriate glass. If you are like the rest of us and just want to get some good shots while it's ok to throw away a varying amount of out of focus ones, the 60d will also be fine.


----------



## Kristofgss (Mar 6, 2013)

Having both a 7D and 600D (similar focus to 60D)
- 7D built like a tank, great ergonomics, fast framerate, can be used as fire-and-forget-I'll-pick-best-image-out-later type of camera when doing sports. The focus system is anything which is not too much to the sides gets the lock and basically just works without having to do much yourself. Downside is that you can only use that if you don't want to shoot a particular subject within the field (for example, one player out of a goup of five), otherwise you'll be switching to center point and focus on body or bottom point and focus on ball anyway which the 60D can do just as welll
- 9-point focus on the other systems: if you keep the focus on whatever you want to shoot, it's exactly the same image as the 7D would give. It only takes a little more work to keep following the action. On the other hand, I tend to do this anyway, look through the lens and keep following what happens on the field. so if it is any sport where you have to pick the subject out of multiple people or with large enough objects (horses) you end up with using the same focus points anyway.
I'd suggest just taking your camera with a good lense to the game and following the subject with the focus point. If that works for you, then the 60D will definitely keep you happy till you outgrow it.


----------



## gn100 (Mar 6, 2013)

-Jarred- said:


> I think the 60D will be adequate. The 7D will give you a higher hit rate of in focus shots. I say hold on to the 60D for a year, then look at upgrading to a 7DII a few months after if/when it gets released to give it a chance for a price drop. In the meantime start saving for that 70-200 2.8 IS II



I agree ..... focus on learning the craft of photography, and put the money aside for lenses, or for an upgrade in a year or so. Sometimes you learn more when using basic gear ..... upgrade the photographer before upgrading the camera!


----------



## Drum (Mar 6, 2013)

The way I would look at this would be...... are you being paid for the photographs you take or are they just for yourself, friends, family maybe the local high school? if you are being paid maybe it's worth considering an upgrade if not then the 60D will be more than enough, apart from the frame rate and auto focus, they have the same M.P. and sensor and will produce a quality shot. get a better lens with more range, the 70-200's are great for this sort of thing, you bought the 60D for a reason what were those reasons?


----------



## greger (Mar 6, 2013)

Congrats on the 60D purchase. Even though I went for a 7D for myself, if you set up the 60D for birds in flight you will get the practice you need for shooting sports. If I get this wrong I will repost tomorrow.

AI Servo, ISO 800, 1,000 Shutter speed. Partial metering in the centre of the frame. If Things aren't going so well with the number of keepers use centre spot focus. I have my 7D set up this way and was not completely happy so I went out this past weekend and took pics of Seagulls flying. I got better results than on other occaisions. So if you don't at first succeed try, try and try again. I set my 70-200 F4 IS USM to mode 2 for panning. I would prefer to have the 70-200 F2.8
Mark ll but it costs more and wasn't out when I purchased the 70-200 F4 IS and 1.4 Extender. I think this lens combo
isn't what you will need for indoor sports. 70-200 2.8 IS USM ll and 2X Extender might work. F 5.6 is what I get and it works well outdoors with good lighting from the sun. Good Luck!


----------



## Northstar (Mar 6, 2013)

7D...I shoot a lot of sports, FPS is a big deal, and so is AF speed/ accuracy. From what I have read, the 7d is better at both. 

In sports, when trying to get interesting ACTION shots, a lot can happen in one or two seconds. When an exciting or memorable play happens, I would rather have my 1.5 second burst get me 12 images rather than 8 or 9. Over the course of a game, a week, and a season, you've significantly increased your chances of capturing more great "action" images....(if action shots are what you're looking for). 

Lens....for football in the evenings, a good lens would be a 70-200 2.8, or for less money the 200 2.8 prime. I think you have to shoot at 2.8 when light is not great, if you don't you'll be shooting at iso 1600 or higher and that won't look good on either of those bodies when you have to crop an image.(which you will)

Have fun!


----------



## Brymills (Mar 6, 2013)

I've gone from a 7D to a 5D III. Very, very occasionally I'll look at a sequence and know that the one that nailed the shot wasn't there because of the reduced frame rate. The increase in IQ and low light capability far outweighs the loss of 2 FPS, but I'm not sure I'd want to go lower.


----------



## brianboru (Mar 6, 2013)

The camera is less important than the lens for what you are trying to do. 

When my oldest child became active in soccer I wanted pictures. One attempt at action pictures with a Point and Shoot convinced me I needed an SLR and I purchased a 40D with a 28-135mm IS - immediately things were looking better. 

Then the next season I needed more reach as the field got bigger. I first tried a 75-300mm, being on a budget, and the pictures in focus looked good but the number in focus was not fun at all. After one frustrating game, I picked up a 70-200mm f4L and was immediately happy. I missed the reach of the 75-300 but the camera was a pleasure to use. Our sponsor, Roger, puts it this way, this is a "gateway lens".
http://www.lensrentals.com/rent/canon/lenses/telephoto/canon-70-200mm-f4l

You didn't say which football games you want to shoot - if it's anything but Varsity games under the lights I would recommend spending your money on "good" but reasonably affordable lenses like the 70-200 f4L. If it is Varsity that you really want to shoot then yes, faster lenses with IS are going to be important. I happily shoot till sundown, but after a quick search in Lightroom found the last time I tried to shoot a game under the lights was back in 2009 and the shots weren't great. (I need to try this again as I've upgraded to a 7D, use a monopod, and just plain have a bit more knowledge and practice.) 

The good news is your choice to move to Canon because of the huge catalog of lenses with offerings at almost every price point. I was kind of depressed for a friend who shoots Sony when he asked for a recommendation for an upgrade to his kit lenses and it was hard to find anything between kit lenses and very-expensive lenses in Sony's lineup. Third party lenses were the only choice for him at the price point he could afford. (There are some good third-party lenses but you have to be a bit pickier in your shopping.) 

I won't say the 7D isn't a better camera than the 60D for sports - it is and was a choice I made when upgrading last year. It's also a more complicated camera and it's forced me to be more involved in setting the camera up to do what I want. My main point is either body will be frustrating unless you get lenses that are appropriate for the sports and the conditions you want to shoot in. 

On my sports photography journey as a hobbyist, I've learned these lessons: 
[list type=decimal]
[*]SLRs for sports, 
[*]Better Lenses, 
[*]Learn to Postprocess
[*]use a monopod
[*]shoot RAW if possible for more options in postprocess
[*]practice shooting and postprocessing. 
[/list]


----------



## YuengLinger (Mar 6, 2013)

My 60D works great for birds-in-flight and other AI Servo type shots. Very fast focus, especially in lower light. I have several friends with the 7D, and THEY swear that, even though we have the same sensor, the 60D does a slightly better job with noise in the shadows, which drives them crazy.

Fantastic camera, the 60D. I also have a 5DIII, but I bring the 60D for nature because of the crop factor, and I love to keep it in the car with a 50mm 1.4 for quick portraits and fun shots.

Agree that the lens for the situation is the most important factor once you have a good camera, much more important than minor differences between bodies. Get as long and fast as you can afford for football, but, as others have said, be mindful of the personal moments, for which you might need to swap to a shorter focal length.

Have fun!


----------



## fussy III (Mar 6, 2013)

Hi,

I had good opportunity to compare the two bodies side by side in 2011.

As result: I trust my 60D like I never trusted another digital Canon (I went through most anything comparable except EOS 1D Mark IV, Eos 5D III and EOS 1D X.)

By all means, do not go for the 7D. I sold mine because I found the center AF of the 60D to produce more reliable results. I had both camera side by side on a birdcliff for two weeks with circling fulmars and puffins using the 300/2.8 L USM and the 300/4.0 L IS USM. First I thought the 7D was better, then I was disappointed to see that it was fast on the bird but the tracking was slightly off in appr. 90 % when the 70D would miss only 50%. In fact I love my 60D for it's AF. Next thing I shot falcons in flight with it , big Gyrfalcons hunting (300/2.8), small Sooty Falcons chasing one another (500/4.0). Framerate sometimes was a bit slow for rthe action. But I am very happy with the 60D, best tracking results aside from older EOS 3, EOS 1n or EOS1D models I ever got. Frame rate is constantly delivering 5fps (not so the 7D, which always stays behind what it should be). Buffer never was really an issue on my 60D. I think the 60D is highly underestimated by 7D owners who might wish to believe they own the better camera.


----------



## brianboru (Mar 6, 2013)

I reread the original post: 



RocklandDragon said:


> ...
> Many high school stadiums are not well lit and the 7D from what I read is good for sports and should handle the low light situations better than the 60D. Also, I hear the 7D can handle the elements better.
> ....



Low light performance is identical between the two. They have the same sensor, same ISO range, and same Digic 4 processor(s). 

Both are stated to be weather sealed although the 7D is supposed to have "better" sealing. With that said, you have to be using a weather sealed lens and filter for the body's sealing to be of any use! Weather sealing is available in most L lenses.


----------



## viggen61 (Mar 6, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> What do y'all think? Is the 7D worth the higher cost over the 60D? I'm not worried about the learning curve and can handle the effort and time it takes to make the 7D or 60D good for sports photography. Also, what lens do you recommend and is it better just to
> get the body kit for the 7D and save up for a great lens. The 7D at Best Buy has a 18-135mm IS lens but the body kit is $300 less.
> 
> Thanks everyone. Feedback would be appreciated.
> 8)


I'd say the 7D is the better performer for what you want to do with it. Whether it is worth spending the money on just now, I'm not so sure.

If you have the ability to return the 60D and trade up to the 7D with little or no loss, I'd say that's not a bad deal. Otherwise, learn with the 60D over the next few months. Both the 60D and 7D are due to be updated, and probably this year, so learning photography now will help you better to use an updated camera later. You'll still get some money from selling the 60D in a few months, but you'll have learned to use it better!


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 6, 2013)

7d no doubt. Was my workhorse for two and a half years. I would recommend a 70-200 f/4 as well if most of your work is outdoors.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 6, 2013)

A 7D will a night/day difference in Performance but if you've got the budget, a used 1D3 could be even better.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Mar 6, 2013)

At the amount the 7D has dropped in price currently it is definitely the best value for the money and not much more than the 60D. One small thing that I didn't see anyone mention yet is the AF manual adjustment feature that you gain with the 7D over the 60D. I'm sure the 60D can keep up a little more or less in more average sports situations but if your focus is off the entire time and you can't adjust it... You gotta go home. You can stay in the game with the 7D if your lens stops landing focus after knowing for sure that it should have, not that I'd be too paranoid about it but it's a good thing to have just in case.


----------



## STEMI_RN (Mar 6, 2013)

Sounds to me like everyone here basically agrees with the same point that the 7D is a better camera for the job, but might not be for the money. Allow me to throw in my $0.02.

I use a 60D and I love it, granted I do very little sports shooting. I use it mainly for nature/wildlife. Of course the wildlife side shares many requirements of the sports shooting. (requiring fast burst rates and tracking etc.) I would say that the bigger improvements in my photos came from my upgraded glass more than the body. So if you haven't spent that much money in that arena yet, it may be something to consider first. (A 70-200 F4L is a great start for a great price, but get the 2.8 IS if you can afford it.)

The 60D and the 7D have the exact same sensor (despite the differences in processing) so the IQ of each is comparable when shot under equally advantageous circumstances. With that said, the 7D has unquestionably better AF and burst rates. If you find the 60D is giving you trouble in these areas, might be time to consider an upgrade.

If you were to get rid of the 60D for the 7D, would you be able to return it for full refund, or have to sell it? If you were to sell it you would probably take a bath, seeing as how all rumors point to the 7DmII and the 70D being right around the corner. I never sell anything. You never know when you'll need a backup.

Bottom line, decide what's important to you and your shooting needs, and head that direction.


----------



## Rockets95 (Mar 6, 2013)

I would consider replacing the EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS with one of the EF 70-200 L series as the first step. I am not a big fan of the 18-135 that I got with my 7D. It does not have the USM motor for fast focus, and my copy seemed soft. The negative part of this is, once you aquire a taste for L glass, it could be tough to kick the habit.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 6, 2013)

Northstar said:


> 7D...I shoot a lot of sports, FPS is a big deal, and so is AF speed/ accuracy. From what I have read, the 7d is better at both.



Not entirely - accuracy of the 60d is somewhat better (see Lensrentals), though both are not very precise in comparison to really good af systems like 1dx/5d3. The main advantage of the 7d is more focus points & firmware customization.



brianboru said:


> Low light performance is identical between the two. They have the same sensor, same ISO range, and same Digic 4 processor(s).



It isn't - the low light performance of the 60d is better because the 7d has more banding (varying from body to body), so you can underexpose = faster shutter & raise shadows more on 60d. Ymmv how often you're doing this, but banding is something to consider, see the improvement 5d2->6d.

Disclaimer: The 7d is the better camera and I'd switch my 60d for free anytime - but my money goes into glass first unless a body has features I *really* depend on.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Mar 6, 2013)

Anyone besides me notice that the OP never replied to anyone after his/her initial question? If they are indeed reading the replies here, the money they spend at 'Best Buy' would be foolishly wasted compared to buying online at B&H or Adorama. Talk about retail markup!


----------



## Orangutan (Mar 6, 2013)

I've photographed exactly one (US style) football game, involving adult amateurs. I used my 60D and 70-200 f/4 in near-perfect lighting conditions. With this combo, my "technical" hit rate was unbelievable: I think I threw out half a dozen out of hundreds on pure technical grounds (exposure, out of focus, motion blur, etc). Of course, other photos were thrown out just because they were not interesting. My one major problem was buffer depth: I tend to shoot raw only, and that would not give me enough frames to follow a play through, or to switch from where I thought the play was going to where it actually went. I found myself waiting for the highlight of each play, rather than following it through. (yes, there's a lot to be said for anticipating your shots) If you stick with the 60D, be prepared to shoot JPEG for the added buffer depth.

I can't speak to the question of shooting sports in low light. If you plan to shoot in the rain, I suggest getting a rain cover for anything short of a 1-series body.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 6, 2013)

Pieces Of E said:


> Anyone besides me notice that the OP never replied to anyone after his/her initial question?



Yes, and this happens very often - it's basically longer-term cr members procrastinating or chatting among themselves. Either people with one post (like the op) just read some replies and then leave, or write something after quite a while. Another possibility is him trolling, but it didn't sound like it even though 7d vs. 60d is/was a heated issue.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 6, 2013)

Pieces Of E said:


> Anyone besides me notice that the OP never replied to anyone after his/her initial question? If they are indeed reading the replies here, the money they spend at 'Best Buy' would be foolishly wasted compared to buying online at B&H or Adorama. Talk about retail markup!



Fear not. I'm reading the replies.

Actually Best Buy had the better price on the Canon 60D during the President's day sale. I got it there and the prices on the 60D and 7D with the 18-135 lens is in line with many of the big online retaliers. Only one that I saw that had a better deal than Best Buy by a decent margin was buy.com (or rakuten or whatever it is now.com).


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 6, 2013)

Drum said:


> The way I would look at this would be...... are you being paid for the photographs you take or are they just for yourself, friends, family maybe the local high school? if you are being paid maybe it's worth considering an upgrade if not then the 60D will be more than enough, apart from the frame rate and auto focus, they have the same M.P. and sensor and will produce a quality shot. get a better lens with more range, the 70-200's are great for this sort of thing, you bought the 60D for a reason what were those reasons?



I would like to post them on a site eventually. It will be a high school football site kept up by me and it is not for pay but I do want other people to freely look through the photos and enjoy shots of the games I see across the state of Texas. I also hope to take video clips (nothing too long) of scoring plays. I really appreciate how the 60D and 7D can handle video and a good lens can even make recording that even better.

I got the 60D because it was a great price, had good reviews, it felt comfortable in my hands, the shutter speed, and decent video recording. The 60D was my second choice because the 7D was just out of reach. I said I had got it last week. That was my fault. It was two weeks ago. The sale at Best Buy and the opportunity to get the 60D in hand pressed me to get it.

Don't get me wrong. So far, I like the 60D and many of the shots I have taken during the day are nice. I have been just trying the camera out for outside shots and a soccer game during the day. I want to take some more shots with it at a baseball game this week, if the game is played at night. There should be a soccer game for high school during the evening this week as well so I could try it more. Like I said, I think the night shots I had were off due to me still learning the camera. To be honest with you, I've been using manual focus for the shots I have taken. I'm used to messing with manual focus from the Sony digital camera I once had. I'll take some more and I'll try to post them here later this week, if I can.

I plan to have this camera for at least two years. I can still return the 60D and get the 7D at Best Buy with the 18-135 lens for around $1448. I'm very apprecitative of the lens recommendations and I can work extra to get a good lens around July or August. Maybe by June if all goes well. I'd only sell the 60D or 7D if the 70D and the 7D Mark II are signifigantly better and can get a decent price (not likely to happen for a while).

I got a couple of weeks before the 30 days is up. I'm going to stay with Canon. I have nothing really against the Nikon but I feel more comfortable with the Canons. I'll keep absorbing all the information y'all have provided and I really appreciate all the info that has been provided.

Thanks!
8)


----------



## jasonsim (Mar 6, 2013)

If all you have is the 18-135mm kit lens, then the 7D will be of little value. Do yourself a big favor and keep the 60D, but get a lens with USM. The 70-200mm f/4L USM is around $600 or less and you will get killer action shots. Just my two cents.



RocklandDragon said:


> Drum said:
> 
> 
> > The way I would look at this would be...... are you being paid for the photographs you take or are they just for yourself, friends, family maybe the local high school? if you are being paid maybe it's worth considering an upgrade if not then the 60D will be more than enough, apart from the frame rate and auto focus, they have the same M.P. and sensor and will produce a quality shot. get a better lens with more range, the 70-200's are great for this sort of thing, you bought the 60D for a reason what were those reasons?
> ...


----------



## greger (Mar 7, 2013)

The settings I posted before are a good place to start and can be altered as needed. Here's a post on cr that you might
find of interest. I found it by doing a google search of 60D and AI Servo.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=956.0

From what I have read an upgrade to 7D is not needed. The 60D is quite capable of satisfying your needs.


----------



## Pieces Of E (Mar 7, 2013)

I do stand corrected. RocklandDragon, I appreciate your responses and am surprised at the deal at Best Buy. Cool beans for you. Good luck with which ever body you do choose to keep and like everyone says, good glass can make a good camera a great camera, limitations aside of course. Cheers!


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 8, 2013)

Pieces Of E said:


> I do stand corrected. RocklandDragon, I appreciate your responses and am surprised at the deal at Best Buy. Cool beans for you. Good luck with which ever body you do choose to keep and like everyone says, good glass can make a good camera a great camera, limitations aside of course. Cheers!



Thanks. It has been an interesting and informative discussion. Now, I'm looking at the lenses that were mentioned on here. A questio I have is if I get a good lens on the 60D--a 200mm lens--and it looks better than the kit lens on the 7D, would that 200mm lens have even better quality on the 7D or would the differences be relatively insignifigant? It's nice to save money if I can great shots on a 60D but since I plan to have the camera for a while, then if the 7D can do better with great glass then I'd go with that. 

I guess I have it ingrained in my head about the 7D being a great sports camera. Review after review would say how great the 7D is for sports. The new Sony cameras even caught my eye with their impressive shutter speed and good video recording capabilities but it came down to the 60D and 7D because they can handle both and the 60D's good price.

Speaking of price, Best Buy still has a deal going on for the 60D and 7D. If the prices of the 7D and 60D had gone back to their regular prices like they did inside the stores then I would be settled with the 60D and learn it to get great sports shots. Since the 7Dgame is on sale again and has a low price guarantee, then I'm reconsidering because I now have the rest to cover the 7D's cost. Believe me, Best Buy are doing these deals because they absolutely have to. You're right about their markup during back in the day when they toppled Circuit City and even Wal-Mart didnt hurt them bad. Amazon, BPphoto, and Buy.com sure did, though. Why would I pay $1600 for a 7D when Amazon has it for $1300? Best Buy is losing money and I dont know if they are going to come back to black. They have to stay competitive with the online shops but it could be too late (hope not, though). But that's another story.

Back to the topic. When I was researching about the 60D in particular, online reviewers, CNET, and a couple others were kind of harsh to the 60D. They liked the performance of the 60D (but not as much as the Nikon D7000 in most cases) but took issue with the button layout. CNET still gave it four stars out of five. On digitalrev, the Nikon got better marks than the 60D but still stated that the 60Dautofocus is a good camera as well. Now the 7D did outshine the D7000 as a better overall camera due to its video, shutter speed, feel, and responsiveness.

The D60 was being used with the kit lens for the reviews as well as the other ones, and as you all have stated, putting on a good lens for the D60 can really help getting great night shots of the football games. I wish Digitalrev or someone could review a great lens on a D60. They did do a review for a EF 200mm lens with a 7D and did it look nice! That's exactly what I'm looking for and seeing that a 7D can handle that is impressive....but maybe not practical since the lens is $6,000 on Amazon and that's a sale price.

Canon EF 200mm f/2 L Hands-on Review 

It may not be tomorrow, but in a few months, I could invest good money in a great lens. Maybe not $2200 for now but a great lens would do wonders for my photo and video shots on a 60D or 7D. Looks like Canon's got me hooked line and sinker and once I get this lens, I'm going to be with Canon for quite a while...and that's going to be a good thing.

8)


----------



## TeenTog (Mar 8, 2013)

I would wait for the 70D to come out. It will have to fil a gap that the 7D will leave when it updates to the MkII, so in that respect should be better frame rate and AF wise for sports.


----------



## greger (Mar 8, 2013)

You say you have a couple more weeks to trade up to a 7D. In 2 weeks Canon may announce something that will change
this debate into a whole new direction. If they come out with a 70D as hoped for by many, it may eclipse both the 60D
and the 7D which I think is a one trick pony. I used the settings I posted earlier on my 40D and 70-200 F4 IS USM and 
1.4 ll Extender and got some really nice pics of BIF. The 2.8 ll is probably even better because it's a fast lens and even
with a 2X extender at F5.6 I think it would automatic focus using AI servo on any canon camera that has AI Servo
capabilities.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2013)

Between the 7D & the 60D ... 7D is the camera of choice for sports photographers, period!
Digitalrev is selling the 7D for $1100 with free shipping


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 8, 2013)

greger said:


> You say you have a couple more weeks to trade up to a 7D. In 2 weeks Canon may announce something that will change
> this debate into a whole new direction. If they come out with a 70D as hoped for by many, it may eclipse both the 60D
> and the 7D which I think is a one trick pony. I used the settings I posted earlier on my 40D and 70-200 F4 IS USM and
> 1.4 ll Extender and got some really nice pics of BIF. The 2.8 ll is probably even better because it's a fast lens and even
> ...



Yes, that is correct. I have a 2 more weeks left. The last couple of days have me leaning with the 60D and I'll likely stick with it if I can get assurances that good glass on a 60D can give me just as good images or close to the 7D. I think the shutter speed should be fine and since I'm unfamiliar with the autofocus features, I wonder if shooting with manual focus is just as good with the 60D compared to the 7D. Maybe I should learn the intricacies of the AF systems of both. It might be better for me to use it in sports since it could save me steps or the af can get better results than what I can do.

The camera is going to be used overwhelmingly for sports and it will be for football. The football pics are going to be public. I want them to be good. Baseball and wrestling are the other sports and I might post the baseball pics on facebook or something like that. If the 60D can handle it and a good lens can make it better, that'd be great.

I'm definitely not expecting a good lens to suddenly change my camera to get 5D Mark III results. I know the 60D and 7D will have limits. Shoot, I'd love a 1DX but not just yet. Maybe in a few years.   

So, I've been looking at lenses and yes, they cost a few pretty pennies, but there is the older EF 70-200mm f/2.8 USM lens, and it is signifigantly less than the awesome II. It doesnt have IS but if I can get a good tripod or monopod and use the lens manually, would it be worth getting? Hear great things about it and since I could save $500 sticking with the 60D, I defintely can use that money towards this lens. 

Sorry for being so inquisitive but the only way I could get answers for these is if I ask people that have used either the 7D or 60D. 

I'll be looking forward to the 70D and 7D Mark II announcements.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 8, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Between the 7D & the 60D ... 7D is the camera of choice for sports photographers, period!
> Digitalrev is selling the 7D for $1100 with free shipping



Hmmm....that's not bad. Not bad at all.


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 8, 2013)

In all honesty, I shot sports for the last two years with a 7D and 5DII (upgraded to the III when the price dropped). The 7D is amazing. It slammed out perfect shots every time and was very durable. I was shooting a pair of 30d's prior and I can't tell you how much of an upgrade the xD series is over the xxD.

If you want to get serious get the 7D, a 70-200 f/2.8 II (save to get it.. the lens is far more important then the body), a good monopod, Grip, 2 extra batteries and a MkIII 1.4 TC. That will give you a wide gamut of reach with one lens and give you very very good IQ. I did 99% of my shooting prior to making a few big sales of photos with a 70-200 MkI on my 7d and a 24-70 on my 5dII. Also what sort of sports are you planning on shooting?


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 8, 2013)

RMC33 said:


> In all honesty, I shot sports for the last two years with a 7D and 5DII (upgraded to the III when the price dropped). The 7D is amazing. It slammed out perfect shots every time and was very durable. I was shooting a pair of 30d's prior and I can't tell you how much of an upgrade the xD series is over the xxD.
> 
> If you want to get serious get the 7D, a 70-200 f/2.8 II (save to get it.. the lens is far more important then the body), a good monopod, Grip, 2 extra batteries and a MkIII 1.4 TC. That will give you a wide gamut of reach with one lens and give you very very good IQ. I did 99% of my shooting prior to making a few big sales of photos with a 70-200 MkI on my 7d and a 24-70 on my 5dII. Also what sort of sports are you planning on shooting?



High School football. Baseball and wrestling are going to be also but those will be for my family because I have nephews that play those two sports also.


----------



## Act444 (Mar 8, 2013)

Honestly, in my experience I find that it's technique first, lens second, camera third. 

If you want good pics of any sport, the right technique is the key...also, understanding the sport you are shooting so you can get the timing down I've found to be key. 

Second, the lens is a much more limiting factor than the body. A 70-200 (f4 if shooting day games, f2.8 if shooting evening or night) should be sufficient IF you are close to the action (on sidelines/first 5 rows). 

Third, if the camera body has a decent AF system you may get more keepers. But without the right technique and/or lens, even the fanciest body won't give you the shots you want.


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 8, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> RMC33 said:
> 
> 
> > In all honesty, I shot sports for the last two years with a 7D and 5DII (upgraded to the III when the price dropped). The 7D is amazing. It slammed out perfect shots every time and was very durable. I was shooting a pair of 30d's prior and I can't tell you how much of an upgrade the xD series is over the xxD.
> ...



Ya.. 7D and 70-200 II would cover all of that NP. You could go with a MKI as well. As the previous poster stated technique is king. Took me 2 months of shooting Kayaking to learn how to do it right.


----------



## STEMI_RN (Mar 11, 2013)

Act444 said:


> Honestly, in my experience I find that it's technique first, lens second, camera third.



Bump....


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 11, 2013)

If you are going to shoot night high school football, you don't want either a 60D or 7D. The noise will be unmanageable unfortunately. So in this case it goes camera first, lens second, technique third. 

There is a trick though, and I'd use it. You'll need a prime lens that opens up really wide, like 1.8 or 2 and use the 1.6x crop factor to its fullest advantage. With said prime, get as close as possible. Sideline pass is a must if you can get it. You won't be able to shoot at 1/500 or even 1/400 at f/2.8 with a 60D or 7D under night lights at high school football. The only other option there is to expect noise going into the game. 

All other cases, daylight sports, the 7D will be a great camera to use.


----------



## Kristofgss (Mar 11, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> I would like to post them on a site eventually. It will be a high school football site kept up by me and it is not for pay but I do want other people to freely look through the photos and enjoy shots of the games I see across the state of Texas. I also hope to take video clips (nothing too long) of scoring plays. I really appreciate how the 60D and 7D can handle video and a good lens can even make recording that even better.


Note that the 7D does not have a video crop mode, which the 60D has and might be very convenient to have if you want to shoot short clips of sports.


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 11, 2013)

First off, I want to thank everyone for their tips, advice and choice on what camera to choose. I also appreciate the lens suggestions and this will be my new goal--to get a magnificent lens.

I went ahead and got the 7D. Now, from my first day from trying it out, it looks like will have to learn my settings, learn what each button does, learn the AI servo, etc. It'll be a great camera for me to really learn the functions of this camera and get my technique down. 

I'll get a 70-200 USM f/2.8 lens (I or II) and maybe get a bigger one if I could get a sideline pass. Highly unlikely for this year so I'll likely be sitting in the first three rows for the majority of the game.

I believe this camera will be one that I wont regret and maybe, just maybe...I can get a 1DX or another high end Canon camera in a few years. For now, the 7D will be my camera and it's main purposes--shooting sports and capturing video clips--it should serve that well. 


Thanks, again, everyone.

8)


----------



## Saurus (Mar 11, 2013)

As most of the other responders have pointed out, the 7D is a much better body for sports than a 60D for 3 man reasons:
better AF, especially tracking
hardier
more FPS

BUT, and it is a big "but". A 7D mkII is expected soon (as you will have seen from this website) and it is expected to be a major upgrade (with correspondng step up in price though). So, if you are prepared to spend a bit more, I'd wait for the mkII. Otherwise, you might get some great deals on the 7D mkI - on the other hand, your 60D will be worth less and less.

But, if I were in your shoes, I'd stick it out with the 60D and spend the extra cash on some faster glass. I think that is where you'll really see better value for money.


----------



## brianboru (Mar 11, 2013)

RocklandDragon said:


> ...
> 
> I went ahead and got the 7D. Now, from my first day from trying it out, it looks like will have to learn my settings, learn what each button does, learn the AI servo, etc. It'll be a great camera for me to really learn the functions of this camera and get my technique down.
> ...



Congratulations on your choice!

Here is a very good configuration for setting the 7D up for sports:

http://www.sportsshooter.com/message_display.html?tid=34832


----------



## RMC33 (Mar 11, 2013)

brianboru said:


> RocklandDragon said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Huge +1


----------



## RocklandDragon (Mar 11, 2013)

Thanks for the link!





brianboru said:


> RocklandDragon said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...


----------



## papa-razzi (Mar 11, 2013)

If you can trade in the 60D and not lose $$ I would do it.

For sports, the extra FPS and AF will definitely make a difference. Most of the best action occurs in a sub second window. Getting 4 or 5 shots vs 2 or 3 will give you more keepers. My experience is that noise on higher ISO can often be fixed in post, but out of focus shots can't be salvaged - so AF matters.

If the 70D is announced in a couple of weeks (if you can believe the rumor here on this site), the 60D is likely to lose value quickly. The 7D will not drop in value much as it is already at the lower end of it's price curve, and I suspect it will still have advantages over the 70D in AF and FPS, & build, but not in IQ or high ISO noise. It is hard to determine the pricing of the 70D, but Canon's trend has been to price all their new products significantly higher.


----------

