Options
Which camera works best with sporting photos
Legendary Enterprise
Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
I am wanting to start high quality photos of my children during sporting events. I am on a fixed budget and want to get the best for money i spend. I want to upload and send out to family members and friends. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
0
Comments
I can still recommend a used, older dSLR like the Canon 1D MKII for outdoor and daylight, but night and indoor sports can be challenging even for the latest and best bodies and lenses. (I did shoot American football at night with the 1D MKII, and for bigger fields with good lighting it was OK. For smaller fields and poor lighting it was a pain.) The 1D MKII was the standard body for Sports Illustrated* for years, so it's still very capable today, and relatively cheap. ($600-$800USD for body, battery and charger, depending on condition.)
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-Digital/system-Canon-Digital/category-Camera-Bodies?s=1&bcode=DC&ccode=2&cc=80166&r=WG&f
Besides the camera body you will also need a sports capable lens or lenses. The Canon EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM is very good if you locate on the sidelines, but it's not cheap. Figure around $1150 or so for a good used copy:
http://www.keh.com/Camera/format-35mm/system-Canon-EOS/category-Zoom-Lenses?s=1&bcode=CE&ccode=7&cc=80285&r=WG&f
These systems are heavy, so I also recommend either a monopod or tripod, and an appropriate head.
Save some budget for extra batteries and some memory cards and you have the start to a capable sports camera system.
*(You can still get the Sports Illustrated setup information here: http://www.siphoto.com/?canon1DM2.inc)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
That said, I used to shoot my kids sports--soccer mostly--with a Canon 50D and a 70-300mm lens. Mind you, this was always in daylight and no experienced shooter would think the shots to be professional. Still, I captured a lot of great moments of my kids and did so for perhaps $1500 (new price) worth of equipment. You could probably get this same set for about half that price used, and have some decent shots of your kids playing sports.
If you want to upgrade a little, take Ziggy's suggestion and get an older model 1D-series body and a decent lens or two. With some practice, you might get something that looks professional!
Ah, OK, so you're planning to spend some real money on this...eventually, anyway.
You're off to a good start with a 70-200/2.8. If you're shooting night games under poor light, you'll probably find older 1D-series bodies to be lacking in the low light area. I know I have a 1D3 as a backup, and it starts getting pretty noisy above ISO 2000 or so. I can't imagine what a 1D2 looks like, but I have no experience with it.
Although not a great sports camera (that's putting it generously), a 5D2 will probably give you the best overall low light performance of the previous generation bodies. You'll work to get decent AF (only the center point is worth a damn) and forget about burst mode. But with some timing and patience you will have some lovely shots, and have a great general purpose camera.
If you want to spend a little more, the 5D3 has decent burst mode, a great AF system, and incredible low light quality. If you want a good general purpose camera that will work well for sports, it's probably your best bet unless you want to pay $5K for a new 1D4. However, I suspect that the price for a used 1D4 will drop a bit once the 1Dx comes out--maybe to $3500 or so, which is the price of a new 5D3. I routinely shoot up to ISO 12,500 on my Mark IV bodies, with good results. It's heavier (much) than a 5-series, and the IQ is not as good, but for sports it's the standard of professional shooters (at least from Canon).
perroneford@ptfphoto.com
actually you can get great sports pics with a cheap four year old Canon Rebel, - much better than the old Nikons!
I don't think a picture of a kid playing soccer in broad daylight stands as proof of anything. Sports at night, or indoors, are much more difficult.
Perhaps, but it may be that this is exactly the situation the OP has in mind. We don't know enough, because he (or she) didn't give us enough info in the first post.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Why wouldn't.....When my kids were young, all their sports were outdoors on Saturday and Sunday mornings/afternoons. My Rebel XT with a EF 70-200 f/2.8L did a great job for many years.
However, now the kids are playing Middle School level sports and my demands of my camera body have changed. The kids are faster, the fields are bigger, and they play in the late evening/night. I plan to make it through this spring season then upgrade to a body with better AF, lower noise, and high pixel density in the fall.
Legendary Enterprise -> Two questions: 1) What sports are they playing? This will determine what focal length and aperture size of the lens. In general, indoor sports need a wider aperture and outdoor sports need longer focal length. 2) How old are you children? If you kids are young, I would think a entry level DSLR would be fine. If they are older and the action is faster, a mid level body might be what you want.
Also, don't forget...you can rent before you buy.....
Just my $0.02. YMMV...Every shooter has a different situation/needs.
Alan
Well?
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
The OP did mention in a follow up post that he wanted to shoot night games. This fact alone makes an entry-level dSLR (e.g. a Rebel series) not an option. It may even make buying a budget kit not an option as well.
I agree that for day games and relatively young kids, a prosumer dSLR and some basic lenses will work. I think the OP is looking for something higher end but still on a 'budget', which means either older bodies (he has a good lens in the 70-200/2.8) or newer bodies that are not great at sports (e.g. 5D series).
What follow-up post? I don't see one. (S)he still shows only one post.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
The way Skorri's post was written, it looked almost like it was the OP following up. And I get the impression that I wasn't the only one who thought so.
Ack!! Sorry, you are right. I mistook Skorri's post for the OP. My apologies...
Nahh . . . no apologies called for. Just trying to keep the thread straight
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Daylight sports can be done on a budget, with anything from a Rebel or D3100 or a used 40D on up, if you are only shooting your own kids or just their team. Because you can shoot and shoot and shoot all season long and then at the end you will have some real winners to choose from.
It is only when you are shooting sports at night or indoors or for hire that you really need a more expensive body like a 7D, D300s, D7000 or better, and a fast lens. Night or indoors should be self-explanatory - low light. When shooting for hire, even in daylight, you have a limited amount of time to get a sellable shot of every kid on the team, or every kid in the league. Then you need as much auto-focus horsepower as you can afford. In any case, the Canon 7D is a great value if you can afford it.
As for budget gear, Canon 40D, 70-200 f/4L:
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
My experience is that commercial shooters tend to show up at larger tournaments, where there are many teams playing and even more parents and friends. For your average league game with just two teams, it is usually not worth their while. However, I recently was shooting my daughter's HS soccer game with one of their main rivals (they won 6-0!) and there was another shooter there who was just trying to make some money. I felt badly that I was taking his business (I give mine away for free to both teams, just because I am a parent), at least until I saw the crap he was trying to sell: many OOF, lots of motion blur because he used a slow shutter speed, and absolutely no editing or cropping. He had a decent lens (300/2.8) and a 7D, and it was in the afternoon under great diffuse light, so equipment was no excuse. I have to say that most of the shots I've seen that come from these commercial shooters at youth sports events are not very good. I have always attributed this to the fact that they are just trying to get a few shots of each kid, knowing that a lot of mediocre shots will net them a lot more sales than a smaller number of really good shots that are edited properly. Honestly, I can't imagine doing that kind of work.
right, they are on a "fixed budget" and want quality sports pics of their family
A crop body and the 55-250IS lens ($150) will get great sports shots (and have a lot of fun)