Newbe Question, apologies in advance!
ironforgesiron
Registered Users Posts: 5 Beginner grinner
Hi Guys,
First off I'm new here, so "Hello!".
I'm looking to buy an entry level DSLR in the next few weeks. My price range is pretty low, anything up to c£350 really.
The most important thing for me, is to get the best camera I can with that cash, for sports photography.
I'll be looking to use the camera for Mixed Martial Arts events, so I need something that can capture fast moving shots.
Any advice/info would be amazing :thumb
Thanks,
Chris
First off I'm new here, so "Hello!".
I'm looking to buy an entry level DSLR in the next few weeks. My price range is pretty low, anything up to c£350 really.
The most important thing for me, is to get the best camera I can with that cash, for sports photography.
I'll be looking to use the camera for Mixed Martial Arts events, so I need something that can capture fast moving shots.
Any advice/info would be amazing :thumb
Thanks,
Chris
0
Comments
If you had a little more in the budget I would suggest the Rebel XS, and that's all budget based really.
R>
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
Sports and action photography are among the most demanding of photographic endeavors and consistently good results will require a system which is designed for and can deliver consistent and fast AF and exposure, etc. Indoor and night sports are especially demanding of AF.
In the Canon line the least I can recommend is an original 1D. A much, much better camera base would be a 1D MKII. These cameras are designed with an AF system that is both more sensitive and faster than any other in the Canon line. Neither are particularly great at very high ISOs, but they're not horrible either. The point is that if the AF is not sensitive enough or fast enough you will get a lot of soft images. Nothing kills an image worse than if the focus is not accurate.
The second part of the system that needs attention is sports capable lenses. The primary considerations are large aperture, sharp wide open and rapid focus motor technology to couple with the AF sensor and AF processing in the camera. A slow lens on a fast camera, or vice-versa, will not yield optimal results.
Inexpensive competent Canon sports lenses include:
EF 85mm, f1.8 USM
EF 100mm, f2 USM
Rental is a very nice option for any important shoot and that might make the following a viable option too:
EF 135mm, f2L USM
If you should go with a Canon 1D, here is the Sports Illustrated setup information (really):
http://www.siphoto.com/?canon1D.inc
... and if you should go with a 1D MKII/MKIIN here is that setup information, and a downloadable file to automate the setup:
http://www.siphoto.com/?canon1DM2.inc
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I've had a look, and decided the following are within my price range. Is one better than the other?
Sony Alpha a3900 with 18-70mm Lens
Canon EOS 1000D + 18-55 IS Lens
Nikon D3100 with 18-55mm II Lens (Non-VR)
edit: Oh, and don't get a Rebel. Slow focus. And I held one the other day... I never knew how HORRIBLE they are to hold. SO uncomfortable when you put your eye to the viewfinder, and the whole body is WAY too small... the 20D feels MUCH better.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Hi Chris, And welcome to dgrin!
Your best bet would be to look to finding a used piece and going that route. There are a lot of newer flashier cameras out there, but what you ask is of an old tried and true method, and Ziggy really nailed it when he mentioned the AF func. ( Zoomer too with the 50 mm!) Actually I suspect there are more than one camera that could deliver the results from an AF standpoint, but overall your issue once inside a gym or arena is light or available light. Most any camera can work outside in normal daylight. but turning in-doors even though our eyes say yes there is light a camera will not see it that way. It'll tend to say: What light? So rather than putter on about it all, try reading more and more and looking to stretch your budget via a used piece of gear. I am not at all certain what the conversion rate is for pound vs. dollars, but I do know if I had a limited budget, I'd have my work cut out for me trying to figure out "what used camera?" Both Canon and Nikon make a cheap 50mm lens that could perhaps hold you over until you found a focal length you had to have. But the cameras can be very limiting even in the used dept.
Here in the U.S. KEH has a Canon 1D listed as 'Bargain' for $339...what maybe 200 pound or so?
Good luck to ya!
1D, 100-300 and 50 1.8, all from KEH... that fits your budget doesn't it?
If you hold/use a 1D and then hold/use any of those 3 you mentioned above... you will IMMEDIATELY see what I mean. The responsiveness, AF speed and accuracy, and build of a 1-series just can't be beat. Seriously, when you pick up a 1-series and a quality lens, you feel like you can take on any photo job.
When the 10D was released it was like $1500. When the 1D was released... what, $5K? See how much buying used saves you?
R.
In my post I mention a used 1D for $339 U.S. and that is within the OP's budget~ with that deal and a new 50 mm he'd be under budget.
It's unfortunate but just because someone only budgets for an entry level consumer camera, they should not be made to feel that is sufficient.
In the case of indoor sports (MMA in this case), it's one of the most potentially demanding of situations. The lighting typically used at these venues is low, photographically, and the action can be intense and fast at times. If the AF can't keep up, that's going to kill the images more than anything. An interesting shot can tolerate some noise and really doesn't need too much resolution. Using fast aperture lenses helps but makes focus speed and accuracy all that more important.
I'm a "solutions oriented" type of person and once I know the needs of a user I am compelled to recommend those solutions which will work best, and then are closest to budget. Without a doubt if there were no budget constraints I would recommend a Nikon D300s or a Canon 1D MKIV and a couple very expensive prime lenses. As it is I am trying to stay as close as possible to the stated budget.
Recommending an entry level camera and a consumer zoom is just not going to benefit the original poster in any realistic way for the intended use.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I just want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. A used 1D series for $339.00. Is this the same 1d series that start at $3999 on canons site?
ziggy53,
I get what you're trying to do, educate the OP, but recommending something completely out of the range of the OP is not really helping him IMO. It's educational, and that's good in it's own way, but IMO if you want to really help offer a recommendation of something somewhat close to his budget. He really can't do much with that kind of information. If that was me, I would feel like I really didn't accomplish much by posting my question here, he still doesn't know what to get.
R.
The discussion here is about the 1D - the first version (1D mark 1 if you prefer). Yes, the mark iii and mark iv versions go for a LOT more, but the basic 1D is a great camera - and cheap!
So do those original 1D's fit the OP requirements? I'm not familiar with them.
R.
The 1D looks like a great idea - goes for roughly the same as a used 40D here in Holland. It is a 4 Megapixel camera as far as I know but it has good autofocus and can shoot fast. I am not aware of different versions. A friend of mine is still using his and doing some very creative work with it.
The body fits roughly within the budget but the lens is not included.
I think dead batteries are the worst
I'd shop the US market since generally the pound is much more powerful here, even with additional shipping. As a precursor to what you should get... don't even think about zoom lenses capable of low light at your suggested budget. They don't exist, lol. Ziggy's suggestion of the fixed lens is basically the only way to go at this point.
Ideally, for Canon your bottom dollar setup that is even capable of low light and sports would be about 425-500 pounds (700-800USD) at an average price used. Basically whatever body you find for 150-250 pounds, and one of these two lenses are all you can do if you want a chance at good results. You'll just have to move around a bit:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-ef-85mm-f-1.8-usm-lens-review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100mm-f-2.0-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
-- Oh I forgot about third party lenses. If you REALLY do want zoom, there may be a good Sigma telephoto zoom that might be just enough for indoors and fantastic for outdoors but you'd need a budget of around 600 pounds. A well lit gymnasium would be very workable with this lens and ISO 400. The prices seem to vary from 250-400 pounds used (400-650 USD)
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-APO-70-200mm-f-2-8-EX-DG-HSM-AF-Sigma-Cameras-/120679521419?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item1c190f5c8b
Personally for what you want to do, I'd save up to about 600 pounds ($1K USD) and grab a decent AF body, a used 70-200 2.8 zoom, a reputable branded generic battery + charger, and an 8gb memory card. Most anything else will have you pulling your hair out and consistently disappointed. This balances out low light capability with zoom.
I believe that it's far worse to recommend tools that probably won't satisfy the intended purpose.
I've been down this road myself. I started my dSLR journey with a Canon entry level body, the XT/350D, and I tried to use it for night and indoor sports. I tried using inexpensive lenses with slow apertures and micro-motor AF. My "keeper" rate was around 25-30%.
Within a year I researched to find out what would work better and I purchased a 1D MKII and a Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM that worked much better and I would up with a keeper rate of around 70%. Not perfect but much, much better. The better camera/lens also had much faster responsiveness including:
All of this meant that I was also getting more "desirable" images.
There is absolutely no doubt that the camera and lens that I chose was the reason for a lot of the improvements I was seeing. Purchasing the same camera now would be much more cost effective and you could save on the lens by buying a suitable prime lens.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
So, Chris, whaddya think?
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Yeah, 400 for a body without a lens
He needs a lens too to see stuff and all that
1. The batteries are MUCH better now, but these oldies can't use 'em. Those old batteries aren't the greatest in cold & need some TLC.
2. They also can only take a max. of 2 GB CF cards.
3. The low-light situations, which he will certainly have with that kind of shooting, is where they perform their worst-- I see that on the old Canon 1D as well as the old Nikon D1X. Those old sensors in combo with so few MP just can't perform comparably to the stuff even 1 or 2 yrs. newer.
With all that sports movement, I would certainly want something that would get me plenty of DOF in low-light, some cropping area, and something other than a short fixed lens, even if it's a kit. And I would want something w/o too many shutter actuations if it's gonna be an older camera. I had to replace a shutter, and lemme tell you, replacing a shutter is almost not worth it on something that's been reborn for several generations of better cameras. I think most people tend to shoot like crazy-- lots of frames, in a sports situation. So the shutter is something to consider. That's why I'd look into one of the ones he showed here, and the D3100 would take care of the above issues and would even have some resale value if he switches in a yr. or so. The 1D, not so much.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Well I'm taking all the advice on board and have looked at the 1d on eBay.
I've seen quite a few good deals, all within my price range. I was looking at the Canon EOS 1000 initially, but I guess I'd be better of getting a Canon 1D used, and hope it doesn't break?
Aside from the camera, is there anything else you recommend I need before getting started on photographing some fights? I guess the settings will have to be tweaked when I get the camera (I'm sure I can Google that) but would I need a specific lens?
Thanks for all the help so far guys!
Did you look over at the link I provided @ KEH? KEH has a great grading system, and they are most assuredly reputable compared to eBay.
As for the lens, very hard not to recommend that 50mm f/1.8 II from Canon due to price constraints.
Good Luck to ya!
Remains a fact that your 350 GBP budget for a body implies that you don't have much left for a lens. Bodies depreciate in value faster than lenses - good glass will hold its price.
PS I just saw the recommendation for the 50 1.8. I never used this lens but it has a reputation for slow focussing in low light. It is cheap however.
I forgot about the 2GB max thing.
Build quality isn't the most important thing here. It's AF. I know the 1D doesn't do low light, big CFs, or long battery life, but the Rebels don't do AF well. It's the OP's choice. I'd get the 1D, a bunch of 2GB CFs, a few batteries, Noise Ninja, and a 50 1.8. Later I'd add an 85 1.8 (~$300 used) and a 100 f2 (~$300 used). It's hard to make up for slow AF on a Rebel, and, granted, it's hard to reduce noise. But Noise Ninja (or similar software) will help.
I totally agree with you, but I just don't think a Rebel's AF will cut it for sports.
DayBreak, my Folk Music Group (some free mp3s!) http://daybreakfolk.com
Isn't that a distinction without much of a difference?
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums