# Canon 6D for HS Football?



## underemployed (Dec 28, 2013)

I have a 40D and sometimes borrow a friends' 7D to do a lot of low light live music shooting and have a need for a full frame because of the odd angles I'm often presented with.  I also actually make money shooting HS football games too.  I love the low price of the 6D, but do you guys think it will be suitable for sports?  Anyone use a 6D for Friday night football games and have some sample pics?  

My lenses are 50 1.4, 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L IS


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 28, 2013)

You already have a lens that you can use, 70-200 2.8, it is generally too short for football, 300mm or longer is a better choice. You can wait for the action to come to you.  The body should be fine. When it comes to sports learn the game, and work on the timing, you should be ok.


----------



## underemployed (Dec 29, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> You already have a lens that you can use, 70-200 2.8, it is generally too short for football, 300mm or longer is a better choice. You can wait for the action to come to you. The body should be fine. When it comes to sports learn the game, and work on the timing, you should be ok.



so save for the sower FPS you don't think I'll have any trouble freezing the action with the 6D vs the 5D3?  I'm fine on the timing and knowledge of the game as I'm a former player and coached for 8 years.  I actually get pretty good shots with the 40D but have issues with the autofocus being slow and sometimes wandering.


----------



## FocusTester (Dec 30, 2013)

I would not recommend the 6d for anything moving. It is just not very good at focusing on moving subjects, not even with fast glass (i.e., f/1.4-2.8), in my humble opinion as a 6d owner. You may want to consider renting the body and trying it on a test shoot before committing if you are still on the fence.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 30, 2013)

The rumors keep going back and forth, but you should know the status of a possible 7D mk ii before Summer and in plenty of time to get one before the season starts for 2014.


----------



## underemployed (Dec 31, 2013)

FocusTester said:


> I would not recommend the 6d for anything moving. It is just not very good at focusing on moving subjects, not even with fast glass (i.e., f/1.4-2.8), in my humble opinion as a 6d owner. You may want to consider renting the body and trying it on a test shoot before committing if you are still on the fence.



A 6D owner's viewpoint was exactly what I was looking for, thanks! I had thought about renting a 6D and testing it out, but of course the season is over now.


----------



## underemployed (Dec 31, 2013)

ronlane said:


> The rumors keep going back and forth, but you should know the status of a possible 7D mk ii before Summer and in plenty of time to get one before the season starts for 2014.



Ya I've been reading all the rumors, and had thought about getting a 7D back in August.  But I really want a full-frame but of course need the fast action ability.  I think the 5D3 will be a nice combo of both.  And who knows, maybe I'll get the 7D2 when/if it comes out!  Just don't tell my wife please......


----------



## Juga (Dec 31, 2013)

I would agree the 6D isn't the best option for AF on moving subjects. The 5D3 would be your best bet and lately the price has been dropping pretty rapidly.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 31, 2013)

underemployed said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > The rumors keep going back and forth, but you should know the status of a possible 7D mk ii before Summer and in plenty of time to get one before the season starts for 2014.
> ...



You get the 5d3 and you probably won't want a 7d2 lol. I ain't telling nuttin.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 31, 2013)

I've shot football with a canon t2i and a 300 2.8 and haven't had any problems, still timing.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 31, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> I've shot football with a canon t2i and a 300 2.8 and haven't had any problems, still timing.




But would you want to do it all the time Scott?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 31, 2013)

No I wouldn't want to use it all the time, when I did, I was proving a point to a friend of mine that said you couldn't use an entry level digital camera to shoot sports. Shooting football is something that I am very good at, but then I have been shooting it for over 40 years and also understand everything about the game. So many people are being told on this forum that sports can't be shot with entry level digital cameras, or even a mid-range digital, and that is bs.  There is a challenge when using a camera that doesn't follow focus very well and people get frustrated and disappointed when they don't end up with the photos they want. They feel defeated by the technology and give up, which is the wrong attitude.

Anything is possible in time, but in this day and age, people want everything fast, great photos don't happen fast. I always hope that people continue on with photography, regardless of what people say about what is and isn't possible.


----------



## ronlane (Dec 31, 2013)

I knew that you shoot football and have for many years, and I knew that you say you wouldn't want to. As stated, in the hands of a skilled, experienced photographer, the equipment doesn't matter as much, it just makes it easier for them. I don't know what's possible or not with shooting sports as I have not tried to do so yet. I am going to shoot some kids basketball this January and February as my intro into sports. I'll then move into the outdoor sports in the spring with hopes to get into football in the fall.

All of this will be for me and not commercially (unless someone starts throwing money at me). I do feel that I have a good leg to stand on shooting football, as I played for over 13 years and tend to know where the plays are going pre-snap. We shall see.


----------



## Juga (Dec 31, 2013)

I don't think anyone said that it couldn't be done but that the 6D just wasn't the best option.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> No I wouldn't want to use it all the time, when I did, I was proving a point to a friend of mine that said you couldn't use an entry level digital camera to shoot sports. Shooting football is something that I am very good at, but then I have been shooting it for over 40 years and also understand everything about the game. So many people are being told on this forum that sports can't be shot with entry level digital cameras, or even a mid-range digital, and that is bs.  There is a challenge when using a camera that doesn't follow focus very well and people get frustrated and disappointed when they don't end up with the photos they want. They feel defeated by the technology and give up, which is the wrong attitude.
> 
> Anything is possible in time, but in this day and age, people want everything fast, great photos don't happen fast. I always hope that people continue on with photography, regardless of what people say about what is and isn't possible.



I'm not that "up on" lower-end Canon bodies...but the thing is, a 300mm f/2.8 Canon or Nikon with its own, custom-designed ultrasonic focusing motor is one of the best-focusing, best-performing lenses made. All of the modern AF super-teles focus fast, and they focus surely. I've used the old Nikon D70 with its crude, 5-point autofocus system with my 300/2.8, and it focuses FAST, and surely...even with a very low end, outdated body and AF system.

Back in 2005, I wanted to try the 300/2.8 on my D70, so I tried about 40 frames with it at this soccer game. I'm not really a sports shooter fanatic, but I was impressed with how fast a 300/2.8 is at focusing, compared against slower lenses or slower zooms. The D70 is a sloooow camera, 3 frames per second, so you have to pick the right time to hit the button. I only shot parts of TWO events with the D70; this afternoon soccer match in October, and this rainy day track meet. I was shooting the D2x that year for pretty much everything, but I did want to see how much was "the camera", and how much was "*the lens*" (300/2.8 AF-S II, the magnesium barreled lighteight model).







Only took one shot.






Only get one frame, of the plant of the pole..by the time the D70 is ready to fire a second frame, the vaulters are already over the bar..or not...

Not that these are great shots, but a 300/2.8 focuses so fast, and so surely, compared to a consumer zoom lens. I think that's the real issue...people often say such and such camera focuses slowly; well...maybe with an 18-200mm f/3.5~5.6 lens it does, but with a FAST pro-grade telephoto lens, "in" and "out" of focus are soooo different that phase detect AF systems get good,good data, and can focus VERY fast. The same is NOT true with short lenses, where the image is sort of in-focus all the time, and the AF system see-saws back and forth, back and forth.

I dunno; what lens makes a 6D focus slowly??? I have a sneaking feeling that with say, a 70-200 Canon or even their 200/2.8, OR with my fave Canon lens, the 135/2-L, that the 6D will lock focus on HS football like a demon. Maybe I am wrong, but I think it's likely that the right LENS will make the 6D capable enough for HS football. The jerseys have a great big, high-contrast AF target right on the front and back...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 31, 2013)

The pole vault shot being only a split second too quick for a typical pole vault shot is still a great shot. I'd be more than happy to have that one.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2013)

Thanks. Coming from you that means something. Yeah...it was raining alllllll day long at that track meet, and my old D1h started shorting out...if I touched the review button the camera started flashing and cycling thru the images on the card, and the finder displays flashed, and I was basically SOL. I had the little D70 on the back of the 300 in its case, and so I took it out and had to use my backup body!

The D70 was like Frame 1-plant   Frame 2-vaulter already PAST the bar and descending Frame 3-athlete getting up from the landing.

Anyway, I'm curious about the 6D and TOP-end fast primes, and how well it focuses. I KNOW the 5D-III is wicked fast on focus. I compared it to the D3x and D4 the last time I was ready to buy a new body, and it's got a strong AF module and obviously has a fast, high-bandwith electronics system and a strong CPU running the camera, like the D3x and D4 do.

My 5D Classic, which I had for six years, was pretty dodgy with the 24-105 f/4 L zoom....could not even reliably handle daylight joggers...but with the 85/1.8 or the 70-200/2.8 IS or the 135/2 it focused great, and it did not have a very strong AF module.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 1, 2014)

I'm surprised at how fast the Canon t2i focuses, it is not anywhere near as fast as higher end bodies, but it works much better than I expected it might. I bought it as a walk around and for use in shooting some receptions where I could get away with using the built in flash. It's really a no think camera.  I did use my manual focus 400 2.8 and 1.4 on it as well, great for some images and not having to worry about the autofocus slowing anything down it was fine.


----------



## underemployed (Jan 1, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> No I wouldn't want to use it all the time, when I did, I was proving a point to a friend of mine that said you couldn't use an entry level digital camera to shoot sports. Shooting football is something that I am very good at, but then I have been shooting it for over 40 years and also understand everything about the game. So many people are being told on this forum that sports can't be shot with entry level digital cameras, or even a mid-range digital, and that is bs. There is a challenge when using a camera that doesn't follow focus very well and people get frustrated and disappointed when they don't end up with the photos they want. They feel defeated by the technology and give up, which is the wrong attitude.
> 
> Anything is possible in time, but in this day and age, people want everything fast, great photos don't happen fast. I always hope that people continue on with photography, regardless of what people say about what is and isn't possible.




I can understand where you are going with that, but wouldn't the question then be why is it that the pro's on the sidelines use a 1D_?  Why don't they just stick to their old double-D or rebel series canon?  Anyway I've gotten some great shots with the 40D (a decent one is below) but I'm ready to go full frame and just wondered if the 6D would be sufficient or if the 5D3 would be the one for me.  I can afford either one but want to make the best choice so I can work smarter, not harder!


----------



## weepete (Jan 1, 2014)

If you can afford either go with the 5D.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 2, 2015)

FocusTester said:


> I would not recommend the 6d for anything moving. It is just not very good at focusing on moving subjects, not even with fast glass (i.e., f/1.4-2.8), in my humble opinion as a 6d owner. You may want to consider renting the body and trying it on a test shoot before committing if you are still on the fence.



This is one of the bad things about being a relatively new member of a forum. The bad information people offer is often buried.

Yes, the 6D is no good for anything moving. God, it just sucks:








Couldn't get it to focus worth a damn:







Nothing usable at all:







Why do people insist on blaming their gear?


----------



## Lumens (Mar 2, 2015)

bigal1000 said:


> Because they don't know what the hell their doing or what they are talking about...They read something on the net and just repeat it here...



The truth is the 6D can do the job and do it very well.  I shoot Birds in Flight all the time with my 6D.  Yes I also own a 7D and when in bright daylight that is what comes out because of the superior AF and Reach, but bottom line mostly I am in Sunrise, Sunset, or Overcast so the low-light capability of the 6D trumps anything the 7D can do.  

If you can afford the 5DIII that is the way to go, but if not then the 6D will do fine.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 2, 2015)

Canon dropped the price on the 5D III by $300 ... AND there's a $300 rebate.  You can now get a 5D III for $2500.  They also lowered the price on the 6D by $100 and it also has a $300 rebate.

This thread started before the 7D II was announced, but now that's shipping so that's another option.

The 5D III and 7D II both have amazing focus systems.  The 6D has an 11 point system that bears strong resemblance to what you'd see on a Rebel body with the 9 AF points... but they add two points... one just left and right of the center point.  It doesn't have the flexibility of the 7D II or 5D III or 1D X (on the other hand, it's also not as complex to understand how it all works either.)  The 7D II, 5D III, and 1D X have Canon iTR which can do intelligent tracking of your subject as they move from focus point to focus point.

The 6D can focus in very little light.  The 5D III can achieve focus at -2EV... but the 6D can focus down to -3EV.  While it's focus system isn't as advanced, it can actually lock focus in less light than a 5D III -- impressive (very few cameras can achieve focus at -3EV).


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 3, 2015)

Cameras work in the right hands, what ever feels best, what ever the camera is going to be used for, then look at this way.  I think the 5D mklll is a great camera body.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 3, 2015)

underemployed said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > No I wouldn't want to use it all the time, when I did, I was proving a point to a friend of mine that said you couldn't use an entry level digital camera to shoot sports. Shooting football is something that I am very good at, but then I have been shooting it for over 40 years and also understand everything about the game. So many people are being told on this forum that sports can't be shot with entry level digital cameras, or even a mid-range digital, and that is bs. There is a challenge when using a camera that doesn't follow focus very well and people get frustrated and disappointed when they don't end up with the photos they want. They feel defeated by the technology and give up, which is the wrong attitude.
> ...



theres a number of reasons.

some people _*have*_ to use the absolutely best equipment to get good shots. they need the best bodies with best buffers for rapid fire shooting and the best AF module and the best glass with image stabilization and the best high ISO handling. those people would probably get few usable shots with consumer gear.

some people just like the bragging rights of having the most expensive/best  equipment. many of them feel that you can not call yourself a "pro" unless you have all top of the line gear. I call those people "gear elitists".

some people shoot in a varied array of harsh and extreme conditions that puts a pretty hefty demand on both camera and shooter. they _*need *_the better weather sealed bodies and lenses. they might be going between different sporting events including extreme outdoor activities so they need a camera that can nail focus under any conditions and have great low light performance.

some people shoot with the equipment their company provides. if the company is providing all high end gear, then whos going to argue with them?

I think most people just shoot the best that their budget will allow.
if you cant shell out 6k for a 1Dx, then a 5dIII is the best option.
If you dont have 3k for a 5dIII, then a 6D is the best option.
If the best you can afford is a 7D, there are ways to make it work just fine under most conditions.
there are plenty of examples here on the forum of people posting great sports shots or wildlife shots with _*not *_
the latest and greatest equipment.


----------



## JacaRanda (Mar 3, 2015)

Mr. Innuendo said:


> FocusTester said:
> 
> 
> > I would not recommend the 6d for anything moving. It is just not very good at focusing on moving subjects, not even with fast glass (i.e., f/1.4-2.8), in my humble opinion as a 6d owner. You may want to consider renting the body and trying it on a test shoot before committing if you are still on the fence.
> ...


The arguments have little merit when the proof is in the pictures.


----------



## Didereaux (Mar 3, 2015)

FocusTester said:


> I would not recommend the 6d for anything moving. It is just not very good at focusing on moving subjects, not even with fast glass (i.e., f/1.4-2.8), in my humble opinion as a 6d owner. You may want to consider renting the body and trying it on a test shoot before committing if you are still on the fence.




That's odd I shot flying birds ALL the time with a 6D using both a 100-400mm and the 70-200.    I believe you should not speak of things you have not done, it does no one any help.


----------

