amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Superbly!

I shot an event recently with my pair of 7DII at ISO 8000 and 16000.

It also was under sodium vapor lighting, which behave the same way as fluorescent, causing a lot of cameras to incorrectly expose and give problems with color shifts. The 7DII has Flicker Free mode, where the camera times the shutter release to the peak of they lighting cycle (which is a 1/120 second occurrence with this type lighting in the US, so you don't notice any shutter delay). The AF system worked very well in those low light situations, too.

Frankly, 6D is about the last Canon I'd want to use to shoot sporting events. It's a great camera for scenics and low light, fine for portraits or macro... but the AF system and frame rate are nowhere near what's needed for action shooting. Only one of the 6D's 11 AF points is cross type that works best for AI Servo and tracking movement. The other 10 points are pretty much worthless for those purposes. In comparison, 7DII has 65 AF points, all cross type. Any one of them are usable, and the camera is also pretty brilliantly capable of working with groups of AF points (I use Small Zone a lot... there are also Large Zone, 4-Point Expansion, 8-Point Expansion and All Point multi-point patterns available. That's in addition to Single Point and Spot Focus/Precision Single Point). The original 7D's 19-point AF was very fast acquiring and excellent tracking movement, too... But I mostly used it with Single Point, since the points are farther apart than in the 7DII.

The only Canon with a better AF system for sports than 7D-series are the 1D-series. But I also would much rather shoot sports with a crop sensor camera, which allows use of smaller and lighter lenses, leaving me more mobile (and less tired at the end of an 8 hour shoot).

70D, T6i and T6s all use an AF system largely inherited from the original 7D and the new 80D has it's own unique 45-point AF system. Any of these would be pretty good for sports, too... though a little less so than 7D-series because it's AF system is "1D-like", i.e. run by a separate chip. Most other Canon use the same processor for AF that's also handling images.

Among the FF cameras, the 5DIII (and probably future 5DIV) and 1DX-series all have advanced AF that's very capable of handling sports/action. They still wouldn't be my choice, though, because lenses for them are necessarily a lot larger and heavier. For example, to frame a subject the same way I do with 7DII and a very hand-holdable 300/4, with a FF camera I'd have to use a much bigger, heavier 500/4 (and a tripod to sit it on).

For sports it's important to pair up the cameras with fast-focusing lenses.... Canon USM are among the best (a few USM lenses aren't built for speed, but most are). I use two Canon 70-200 (both f4 and f2.8 versions), 300mm (both f4 and f2.8) and 100-400 a lot. I also sometimes use 24-70/2.8, 28-135 IS USM, 500mm, 10-22mm and a few others. I don't use, but imagine Tamron USD and Sigma HSM lenses have similar AF performance to Canon USM.

So, unless you have other uses that require the FF camera, for the type of shooting you're doing I'd strongly recommend switching to an APS-C camera: 7DII, 80D are the latest and greatest, original 7D or 70D also can serve very well. 6D is just about the least sports-oriented camera in the Canon line-up. (Note: the 7D and 70D don't have the "Flicker Free" mode mentioned above... the 7DII and 80D both do.)

Any of these APS-C have image quality that's more than enough for typical sports shoot purposes. The least of them (original 7D at 18MP), I've made as large as 16x24" prints that were excellent. 7DII I use now are both a little higher resolution (20MP). 80D is 24MP.

As a bonus, one of these APS-C models will cost considerably less than a FF model, whether a 5DIII or a 5DIV (when the latter is announced, possibly later this month, I suspect body only will cost around $3200 or more).

And a lower cost crop-sensor camera should leave some money in your budget to upgrade your lens, too.

I haven't used the 70-200 you mention.... would recommend the Canon anyway. The EF 70-200/2.8 IS USM Mark II is considered by many people to be the best 70-200 made by anyone... But it's fairly expensive at close to $2000. For a lot less money, if you would consider used the earlier version of that lens is quite good too. There also is a less expensive non-IS version (though personally I want my telephotos to have IS). Or, there are two f4 versions (one with IS, the other without) that are smaller, lighter and less pricey.

If you want a shorter focal length to complement any of those, the Canon 28-135mm is a good choice that can be found new or used relatively inexpensively, and is fully up to sports/actions shooting. A 24-70/2.8 is better built and might be nice in lower light conditions, but will be bigger, heavier and a lot more expensive. The Canon 24-70/4L IS USM might be worth a look.

If you need longer focal length, the Canon 300/4 IS USM works very well, too. The 70-200/2.8 IS II works pretty darned well with a 1.4X teleconverter (I'd probably look for a Canon "Mark II" or a Kenko DGX. The Canon Mark III TCs are actually designed to slow AF a little.... about 25%... for accuracy, over speed.)

Rather than dropping $3200+ on a FF camera... put $1000 to $1500 toward a camera and $1000 to $1500 toward a new lens. I think you'll be glad you did, since the camera will be much better for sports/action shooting than what you've been using!

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Judge for yourself...

7D II at ISO 16000:



Sure, there is some noise, but it's fairly well controlled. Above was a test shot by the light of a single window. It was shot RAW and I took some care not to underexpose, but otherwise any default in-camera noise reduction was all that was used. The RAW file was converted using Lightroom 6 at default settings... So no special noise reduction with either the camera or in post-processing. Since then I've shot around 5000 images at ISO 16000 and made some prints and digital files for customers from those, using more careful post-processing. The results have been very good. When I get time I will put some of those on Flickr, to use as examples.

Though I haven't used it, 80D is two years newer, 20% higher resolution and seems just about as capable at high ISO.

But 7DII is both a faster and a lot "tougher" camera. It's got a 200,000 click rated shutter (compared to 100,000 on your 6D or on 80D) and it's body panels are mostly magnesium (instead of plastic). Plus it's very well sealed for dust and moisture resistance. The guys at Lensrentals.com like to check out the insides of camera gear, so took a 7DII apart and were very impressed with the sealing. Their teardown of a Canon 100-400 Mark II was also one of the things that encouraged me to buy that lens.... they call it one of the best-built zooms they've ever seen. I've been shooting with the original Canon EF 70-200/2.8 IS USM for 15 years... one of my most used lenses, probably taken around 250,000 shots with it.... without any problems what-so-ever.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I used to have a Tamron 70-200 2.8 and I liked it a lot. But I missed an easy shot at a college soft ball game because it did not focus fast enough. The next week I bought the Canon 70-200 2.8 and couldn't believe how much faster it auto focused. I wish I had kept the Tamron as a second lens. So I would say get the canon lens, you probably will be very glad you did.
Camera bodies are constantly upgrading and you can buy a great body by today's standards at a good used price down the road.
You don't really need a fast shutter for sports, although its nice to have. I won collegiate sports contests with rebel 6fps (?) camera with an ISO rating of 1600 (and that tamron lens)before I upgraded to the 1d mk4 for sports. Concentrate on anticipating where the height of the action will be, and at the height of the action fire off 3 shots.
Get a new body when your current one can no longer do what you need it to do.

whitewolfowner

If you keep getting into collisions with players, you should not be out there. Sports photography should be done by people that understand and know the games they are shooting so they know when to move or not. You are a hazard to yourself and the players and one day may find yourself in a law suit.

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

Obviously you don't know a thing about sports shooting. I shoot up to 5 games a week during football season. As long as you are standing on that field you are taking chances with yourself and your equipment. Division 1 College games you can be behind the media lines far from the sidelines and someone always gets hit or has a lens or body broke. That's why you carry accidental and liability insurance required by most college and pro venues. If I am on a field 12 to 15 hours a week shooting, the odds of having close calls are not in my favor. I have been doing this for ten years, and my services are not cheap. I would watch whom you lecture.

whitewolfowner

I've been doing sports all my life and never had a collision with a player or other photographer. I know when to move, not only for my protection but for respect to the athletes. So who's the more experienced here!

Haydon

It can and does happen regardless of your experience. Here's a perfect example from the 2016 IAFF World Championship with a photographer on the sideline trying to make a shot. Typically they choose to shoot low requiring them to kneel or squat to create a compelling shot. By the time this guy would have realized this was going to happen it would have been too late. Body mechanics wouldn't allow you to come from a pure squat to a standing position and run in time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iKLhqTrC9A

I feel sorry for this photographer. This must be been brutal. Accidents do happen to even to professionals.

Here's another example without a video from 2014 snapping a 400 2.8L valued at $10,000. Likely a pro. Not many out there can afford this lens. Even if it is insured, I wouldn't want to want to explain this to my boss

http://petapixel.com/2014/10/20/happens-football-player-lands-10499-canon-lens/

PaulR01 Loc: West Texas

This ESPN video says it all, Top 10 Camermen hits.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XnnOSiSvg4) I love number 10 and have had number 7 happen quite often. I normally get a close call every couple of weeks. Since I am shooting with a 300 I am backed off the line of scrimmage 25 to 35 yards. The receivers will use me for a reference and throw the ball straight at me. Its common for the receiver to do pick plays off the backfield refs or people on the sidelines. Here is a shot during a 7 on 7 game back in June where the receiver ran straight off the line straight at me. I almost caught the ball with one hand. This shot was at 70mm. The the question here is do you drop the camera and run or do you get the shot. I had maybe be a 1/2 a second to make a decision. The player missed me by about 6 feet. The play was called by the QB to have the receiver go straight at me for the pass. If this was a seasonal game and the ball was caught and won the game. This would be the shot the editor wants or you do you get chastised for missing the shot.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

this is probably the last place you want to go for information on what equipment to purchase and use. all opinions are anecdotal, mine included. get to a camera store. speak with the people who know their selections and determine, exactly, what you are going to use, whatever you by and how often you are going to use it. then listen to their advice, not our subjective opinions.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Why would you assume that any camera store salesperson is going to give a less biased and more informed OPINION than anyone on here. Everyone has their preferred equipment or brands for whatever reasons, including camera store sales people. Kind of reminds me of the stereo store near the university when I was back in college. Didn't matter if you had $100 or $3,000 to spend they had a system to sell you that "sounded great".

Get as much information as you can and the look at what you have to spend and decide your spending plan, sometimes this is based on where you want to be in 1, 2 or 5 years too. If you spend and plan wisely you can have a really nice kit one day.

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

whitewolfowner

Sure it can happen to the most experienced photographer, accidents do happen. But if it is an incident that happens seasonally or is a common occurrence, then that tells something too. I don't care how good you are, you are never going to get the shot all the time; if one could do that we wouldn't see a line up of photographers at events. Those that know the sport they are shooting know where to stand in the beginning and not out themselves in harm way. It's just people that get into accidents on the road; some hardly ever do; maybe one or two in a lifetime; others constantly wreck.