6D or 5Dm3?

[RLPhoto]

It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.

I recently discovered some old pre 1920's National Geographic issues in my attic, and, sure enough, there were great photos of sporting events, wildlife, and birds in flight from the early 1900's using primitive cameras, the photographer just learned to deal with what he had..

Get as good of a camera as you can afford, and learn to use it. You will do fine.

This. +1

 

[Marsu42]

Just to mirror the high standard of argumentation and further elaborate the topic

It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.

I recently discovered some old pre 1920's National Geographic issues in my attic, and, sure enough, there were great photos of sporting events, wildlife, and birds in flight from the early 1900's using primitive cameras, the photographer just learned to deal with what he had..

Get as good of a camera as you can afford, and learn to use it. You will do fine.

This. +1

This -1

I am sorry but that is bunkum.

Yes we made fine images when we shot manual focus, but keeper rates were dramatically lower, even for top end pros. When I shot sports in the '80's I was happy with 3 critically sharp images per 36 roll, an 8% critical keeper rate and I was average at the time and in the best of health and eyesight, nowadays keeper rates are in the order of 90-95% critically sharp.

AF is huge, that is why after a comparatively short introductory period they achieved universal acceptance, way quicker than practically any other major feature of SLR's. Universal acceptance of TTL metering and Auto exposure modes both took much longer.

This +1

 

[bdunbar79]

It always amazes me as to how users think that AF is such a big issue with modern cameras, I guess that they somehow don't wonder how photos were taken for 100+ years without any autofocus at all, and yet fantastic images were captured of sporting events, bif, and other demanding events. Certainly, good AF is nice, but hardly a big issue for me. I did just as well with my Argus C3, my Yashica TLR, my Canon FTQL, any number of P&S cameras, and several early DSLR's. I have had several 1 series DSLR bodies as well as Rebels, all the 5D series, even a D800! I've had no issues capturing sports with any of them, its just a matter of paying attention and learning timing. There were probably a billion supurb images captured with those old Graphlex 4X5 cameras where you had to slide in the film carrier, then pull out the film cover, and capture the image as quickly as possible. Then reverse the process, flip the carrier over and take a image using the film on the other side. They could do that in a second or maybe two.

I recently discovered some old pre 1920's National Geographic issues in my attic, and, sure enough, there were great photos of sporting events, wildlife, and birds in flight from the early 1900's using primitive cameras, the photographer just learned to deal with what he had..

Get as good of a camera as you can afford, and learn to use it. You will do fine.

Sorry, but as a sports photog that is a load of crap. Rare photos back then are very commonplace and expected now, due solely to accurate/better AF.

 

[ejenner]

T1i was the first camera that I owned with AF and I was amazed. Then when I had a 5DII I wondered about all these people going on about AF. I mean even with the T1i I could do better taking shots of my kids playing sports than I could with my A1.

Then I got a 7D used for $800. Oh boy, another eye-opener. Not just AF, but responsiveness and speed. Then I started rationalizing that I could get rid of noise and for anything but landscapes and portraits the 7D would come out instead of the 5DII.

So I had to get a 5DIII. I had told myself for over a year that I didn't really need it, the 5DII and then the 5DII + 7D combo was fine. I lied. Trying to shoot my kids running around indoors with the 5DII during the Christmas break and knowing that my 7D would get all the shots I was missing with the 5DII (but with ISO6400 noise) I finally pulled the trigger. The 7D also got me fed up with focus-recompose that I was doing with the 5DII.