skingfong Loc: Sacramento

I've always wondered why there are camera bodies specializing for sports and wildlife vs. bodies for landscapes and portraits.

Seems to me if it can shoot something that's moving and fast, why can't it shoot still landscapes and portraits too?

If I had to choose only one camera, I'd choose the sports and wildlife because I could still do landscape and portraits too. If I chose a portrait and landscape camera, it would be limited not being able to shoot action. The focus and tracking may not work as well. Wouldn't the obvious choice be a camera that could do it all like a sports/wildlife camera?

OviedoPhotos

My 2 cents

A sports camera and lens combo is much more costly than a portrait landscape combo. I shoot sports on occasion and willing to deal with what I get. Landscape and portraits are much more of what I do.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

In my situation, I shoot mostly landscape and travel photography. But I also shoot birds in flight, macro, indoor and outdoor sports, architectural, and just about anything that anyone with a camera would shoot.

I use a pair of D800s - which are not supposed to be good for portraiture (too much fine detail), or for sports (4 fps is not a high enough capture rate to do effective "spray and pray" shooting commonly employed in sports shooting), or for night shots (D4S and D3S has better low light performance), etc etc etc.

I use my cameras for all of the above - and I still get the shots.

My preference is for the 36 mp, which allows me to have a lot of flexibility in post processing, something that lower res sensors cannot offer. If price was no object, I would have a D800/800E/810 AND a D4S, but I would probably find myself using the 800 series cameras more.

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

It's not that it can't shoot one or the other...it's just easier.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

I can see that for a sports and wildlife camera. It would be easier for moving objects. It would have a better focus, tracking, and burst speed. Wouldn't it be just as easy to use the same camera for landscapes and portraits?

I guess my point is why would one choose a landscape and portrait camera when a sports and wildlife camera can do it all?

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Stan, in its purist form I'd say you are correct.
The sports camera can shot what most slow cameras just can't get. And yes, the sports camera can do ANYTHING the slow shooter can do.
So it turns into a mega pixel battle and/or what you specialize in.
I've shot a Canon 5dll for close to 5 years and I shoot a lot of sports. Do I get good sports shots? Absolutely! But was it ideal? Absolutely NOT.
It's kind of like having a car that only has the reverse gear working! Sure, it will take you anywhere. You could even go cross-country with it but it would be an excercise in FRUSTRATION!
I now have a 7dll as well, and it will actually be enjoyable to shoot sports and wildlife, instead of a constant excercise in wringing the crap out of the poor little camera! :lol:

Are you asking philosophically or are you actually trying to make a choice?

If I could only have one camera and could afford either camera, it would be a tough choice between a 1Dx and the 7Dll because of the extra reach of the crop camera.
I would probably get the 7dll so that I could use the lightweight 500 f4 and get the same reach as the 1dx with the tank of an 800mm. :thumbup:
SS

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

I'm only asking philosophically.

I have a 40D and a 6D. I agree with everything you say. I like the extra reach with the compact sensor. I also like having cross points on all of the focus points on the 40D. 6.5 fps isn't too shabby either. The IQ and ISO performance of the 6D is better than the 40D. I like how wide you can get with the 6D and the bokeh too. I think that's why I have both. I'm lusting for the 7DII but I just bought the 6d earlier this year. Not having as many keepers with moving objects with the 6D inspired me to start this thread.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

We seem to constantly have this debate. You get no more reach with a crop sensor you simply get a narrower field of of view.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

So many choices.
The Canon 7D MII is perhaps the best out there for a general camera that also meets your action needs. It has a very advanced focusing system and produces very sharp and clear photos. Also the choice for lenses for sports is phenominal but also for portrait an 85mm f1.2 can't be beat and the Canon lens system is where you get that lens.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Cameras tend to be either deliberately designed and optimized for one purpose or another, or they just simply end up serving one purpose better than another.

I use a pair of fast operating crop-sensor cameras for sports and action, wildlife... and a slower to shoot full frame camera for landscapes, architecture, portraits, and some macro work.

When shooting sports/action/wildlife you will likely want a fast focusing, high frame rate camera. A lot of this type photography also calls for telephoto lenses, so a crop sensor camera also might be preferred. This allows using lighter, less expensive telephotos. Canon 7D, 7DII are really optimized for this purpose. Canon 70D also comes very close (and has some nice features of it's own, including a significantly lower price than 7DII). Actually Canon 60D, 50D, 40D all have been pretty darned good sports/action cameras. There are also the pro-oriented 1D series (not to be confused with the full frame 1Ds-series). Interestingly, Canon now has 1DX which is a full frame sports/action oriented camera. The 5D Mark III also has very capable and advanced AF, however the earlier 5D models didn't.

Certainly you can shoot landscapes and portraits with a crop camera such as Canon 7D or 7DII, too. But you paid extra for a camera with a high performance AF system that's not really needed for that scenic shot or Buffy's yearbook photo.

Meanwhile, a full frame camera may lend itself better to those landscape and portrait shots. Wide angle lenses are popular for scenic photography, and a full frame camera allows that wide lens to truly act wide (where the same lens would be a lot less wide on a crop sensor camera... or you need to get an ultrawide especially made for crop).

There also is potential that one would want to enlarge a scenic shot to really big sizes... Larger than, say, the typical sports shot. A FF camera with its bigger sensor usually captures more fine detail, allowing for more enlargement. There are also some advantages to using FF (and certainly no disadvantages) for portraiture, macro, architecture.

Though you certainly can use a FF camera for sports and other types of action shots, many FF cameras are slower shooting and some have less sophisticated AF systems. Also, telephoto lenses will need to be a lot bigger, heavier and far more expensive, to get the same "reach" one might enjoy with a crop sensor camera.

There can be some "savings" using both. For example, because I have crop cameras that serve my sports/action/wildlife shooting needs well, I haven't felt the need to upgrade to Canon 5DIII. My 5DII still serves well (and is only used about 1/10 as much as the croppers... just because of what I tend to shoot most).

For example, say I'm shooting a small bird at some distance with my crop sensor 7D and an easily handheld EF 300/4L IS lens. In order to capture the same image with my full frame 5D Mark II, I would need to fit it with my 500/4 IS lens, which is about 8X the cost, weighs three times as much, and isn't handholdable for very long, so pretty much requires a hefty (and expensive) tripod rig as well.

IMO, people "mis-speak" or exaggerate a lot on these forums. They tend to categorize things too rigidly, not deliberately but because they have limited experience and can only speak authoritatively about what they know. Most modern DSLRs are very "mult-purpose". One or the other might lend itself more to a particular purpose, but they all are pretty darned versatile. So just choose based upon your primary purposes, but don't hesitate to use the camera for whatever comes your way.

I use a pair of Canon 7D (and will be replacing those 5 year old cameras with 7DII's in the not too distant future), but only recommend them to fairly experienced and advanced users. For $700 less the 70D comes very close in performance (for example, has 19-point AF very similar to the original 7D's, as well as 7 frame per second shooting speed, roughly equal to the original 7D's and only a little less than the 7DII's 10 fps). That $700 can go a long, long way toward complementing the camera with some very nice lenses.

Regarding lenses....

Sorry, but the 85/1.2L (either version) is an awful choice for sports photography! Yes, it's a superb lens, but extremely expensive and very specialized. If I were shooting weddings and high end portraiture, it would be in my camera bag. But shooting sports/action/wildlife... it doesn't even make it onto my "want" list. The main reason is that although it has USM autofocus drive, it's not the fast focusing type, like most other Canon USM lenses. Due to the extra large aperture and potentially very shallow depth of field, the 1.2's AF is a "long throw" design that emphasizes precision over speed. It's also a "fly by wire" lens, a more minor consider that means it cannot be manually focused unless powered up on a camera.

Besides, $2100 is a lot of cash to tie up in in a pretty highly specialized lens. The far less expensive (around $400), smaller and lighter EF 85/1.8 USM is [I]much[/] faster focusing (and also is a very nice portrait lens) and tends to be a lot more versatile choice.

But 85mm also really isn't long enough focal length for a lot of sports, and certainly not for wildlife. 70-200/4L IS or 70-200/2.8L IS II are much better choices for versatility. 135/2L and 200/2.8L are superb, fast focusing primes, if preferred.

EF 300/4 IS USM is a super sports/wildlife lens, especially on a crop sensor camera. It also works very well with a quality 1.4X teleconverter (so does the 135/2, by the way). The 300/4L is also the closest focusing of the Canon teles longer than 200mm. It is great for especially fast-moving, shy, small subjects, such as butterflies and dragonflies.

Or, if preferred, there are the EF 100-400 IS USM (original and the new Mark II version).

There are also some interesting and useful third party lenses that may be worth consideration. Sigma offers some HSM lenses and Tamron some USD, both of which are similar to Canon USM in speed and performance, would be usable for sports/wildlife action shots. (Tokina is coming out with something similar, but only putting it on one lens in Nikon mount right now).

From there, the prices (and size and weight) start to go up dramatically.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

For decades now, I have always looked towards the Gamers Computers. They typically embodied the fastest video cards, highest bus speeds, and fastest RAM speeds.
So while not being a Gamer, (I abhor games on a computer) computers built for gaming had the fastest operating systems.
And that meant they could do picture work the quickest. Which was what I wanted.
While things have kind of plateaued in computers, still processing speeds equal snappier performance.

Apply that to a camera. If it has the top performance, fastest Frames Per Second (fps), and higher pixel count, you can "dumb" it down for other photographic uses.
But you cannot take a slower camera and make it faster.

So consider the spec's on what you are looking at. Even if you do not understand some of the specifications there, snappier would be my choice, given the budget can stand the price.

My first "real" camera was a portrait camera.
Now I have a DSLR that can do anything all my previous cameras could do.
And it does all of them far, far, better. ;)

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

You did not specify in your queation if you were interested in camera bodies or the bodies of prospective models. If the latter I would recommend Kate Upton. But I am sure many others would be more than acceptable.

jackpi Loc: Southwest Ohio

I am considering getting the Sigma 150-600mm Sport lens for BIF with my D810. I would love to pair it with a crop camera like the D7100, but the buffer in the D7100 is pretty limited and the frame rate isn't that great. Waiting to see if Nikon announces anything comparable to the Canon 7Dii, which would be ideal.

thelazya Loc: Wendell, MN

I purchased the 7D 4 years ago, sold it this spring. Pre-ordered the 7Dll and then got the 6D for the wait time until the 7Dll arrived. If I'm indoors I use the 6D if I'm doing anything out doors whether it be birds, sports, or weddings I use the 7Dll with the 6D as a spare. the 7Dll can do anything I ask of it but I like the low light capabilities of the 6D more than the 7Dll.

skingfong Loc: Sacramento

Can't argue with that recommendation.