Voici d'autre infos (en anglais) que j'ai pu récolter sur le net :
Monsieur Oople :
hmmm, I'd get a Nikon D300 and a 70/80-200 lens of some sort - either the body-driven 80-200 AFD nikkor, or maybe the 70-200 Sigma (though I've not used that one).
I used the D200 in Japan for the Worlds and it was awesome - the D300 is loads better so has to be one of the best sports cameras around. I use the 70-200 AFS VR nikkor but that's a bit out of the price range (though mine was 2nd hand and about 700 quid)
Un autre sur Oople:
You really cant go wrong with either the Nikon or the Canon's, both are comparibly capable, though more of the so-called pro's who do this sort of thing for a living tend to go with Canon.
I went with the safe Canon 40D with same make lenses 18-55, 50mm, 75-300.
Im an amateur by jimmys standard and he's got one heck of kit but im sure even he'll agree that, lenses are just as or more important than the chassis itself. Dont get me wrong, you still need a good/sound chassis but lenses are what captures the images and how well its reproduced.
Idem :
I've been looking at the Sigma 100-300mm EX F4, gets good reviews on all the usual sites like
www.photozone.de. Most people reckon its as sharp if not a bit sharper than an equivalent prime, even one from canon.
I think i can live with the f4 instead of f2.8 as most of the time i'm gonna be using it outdoors.. Was looking at the Canon 70-200mm but the SH prices are a bit steep for my liking (or currently stingy pockets )
Good bit about the sigma is that with a 1.4x tele conveter you get a 420mm f5.6 lens, so still get AF and its still pretty sharp.
I use a canon 5D but i do a lot of commercial/fashion work that suits having a full frame camera better.
Idem sur un forum Canon (moins dynamique celui-ci !):
Il me semble que l'autofocus précis est le talon d'achile des boitier d'entrée de gamme 350-400 et de milieu 20,30 et 40D car incapable d'acrocher précisément une cible a plus de 5m!!
A confirmer tout de meme par un expert!!