Which camera works best with sporting photos

Legendary EnterpriseLegendary Enterprise Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
edited April 26, 2012 in Cameras
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.

Comments

  • chuckdee1chuckdee1 Registered Users Posts: 52 Big grins
    edited April 23, 2012
    What's your budget?
  • ziggy53ziggy53 Super Moderators Posts: 24,118 moderator
    edited April 23, 2012
    The minute you say "sports" you are talking about one of the most challenging forms of photography. It can challenge the photographer as well as their equipment, and it's not a good category for "budget" photography.

    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)
    ziggy53
    Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2012
    Ziggy has some very good suggestions, as usual. 'Sports' and 'budget' are not two words that are usually used in the same sentence when talking about cameras. When I shoot pro sports I have a suitcase with $25K+ worth of equipment in it!

    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!
  • SkorriSkorri Registered Users Posts: 110 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2012
    For the past few years my 60D and my 70-200 2.8 has done me very well. I have recently started shooting more high school football and soccer, all at night. I will echo what Ziggy said, "challenge", especially in a poorly lit field. I am currently looking to upgrade my camera body and then eventually, the 400 2.8 lens.
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2012
    Skorri wrote: »
    For the past few years my 60D and my 70-200 2.8 has done me very well. I have recently started shooting more high school football and soccer, all at night. I will echo what Ziggy said, "challenge", especially in a poorly lit field. I am currently looking to upgrade my camera body and then eventually, the 400 2.8 lens.

    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).
  • perronefordperroneford Registered Users Posts: 550 Major grins
    edited April 23, 2012
    This is a much easier conversation on the Nikon side, but with Canon, you're kinda locked to the newest or more expensive stuff. Good luck.
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    This is a much easier conversation on the Nikon side, but with Canon, you're kinda locked to the newest or more expensive stuff. Good luck.

    actually you can get great sports pics with a cheap four year old Canon Rebel, - much better than the old Nikons!

    7099009581_01b25848f7_b.jpg
  • PupatorPupator Registered Users Posts: 2,322 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    Brett1000 wrote: »
    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.
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    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.
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • skip_dyeskip_dye Registered Users Posts: 1 Beginner grinner
    edited April 24, 2012
    Pupator wrote: »
    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.


    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
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    chuckdee1 wrote: »
    What's your budget?

    Well?
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    Icebear wrote: »
    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.

    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).
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    jhefti wrote: »
    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. ne_nau.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • rsquaredrsquared Registered Users Posts: 306 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    What follow-up post? I don't see one. (S)he still shows only one post. ne_nau.gif

    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.
    Rob Rogers -- R Squared Photography (Nikon D90)
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    Icebear wrote: »
    What follow-up post? I don't see one. (S)he still shows only one post. ne_nau.gif

    Ack!! Sorry, you are right. I mistook Skorri's post for the OP. My apologies...
  • IcebearIcebear Registered Users Posts: 4,015 Major grins
    edited April 24, 2012
    jhefti wrote: »
    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 thumb.gif
    John :
    Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
    D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
  • ZerodogZerodog Registered Users Posts: 1,480 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2012
    For sports you have a few really good options for bodies. The new Canon 5dIII looks to be a really good option. The Nikon D700, D3s, D4 are very good options. And the 700 can be had for a good price now. And even though it is old, it is no slouch. If you have a very high budget the D4 might be the ticket. You get 16 mega pixels, a little faster frame rate and killer new video features. It also matches the D3s for low light abilities. It is the new king of sports cameras, if only by a tiny margin. For lenses you can not replace the 70-200 2.8. Even with a heavy hitting 400 2.8 you still need a normal zoom. It is my most used lens.
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2012
    It is all about the camera's auto-focus success rate.

    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:

    386701549_e296t-XL-3.jpg
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • mercphotomercphoto Registered Users Posts: 4,550 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2012
    I'm surprised no one asked if the sporting events in question were covered by a sports photography outfit. Yes there is a lot of fun in getting your own images, but if on a budget sometimes it really is cheaper to buy photos. Sports photography is tough to learn. And when you are talking little kids that means you need a lot of focal length in your lens (small objects, far away). If this makes you end up buying equipment that you would not normally have a need for, buying photos might end up being much cheaper.
    Bill Jurasz - Mercury Photography - Cedar Park, TX
    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
  • jmphotocraftjmphotocraft Registered Users Posts: 2,987 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2012
    A, where's the fun in that? B, no guarantee the pro will get a good shot. C, the pro might not be shooting action, only portraits. D, a crop camera with a 70-200 will be great for sports and many other things. E, where's the fun in that? ;)
    -Jack

    An "accurate" reproduction of a scene and a good photograph are often two different things.
  • jheftijhefti Registered Users Posts: 734 Major grins
    edited April 25, 2012
    mercphoto wrote: »
    I'm surprised no one asked if the sporting events in question were covered by a sports photography outfit. Yes there is a lot of fun in getting your own images, but if on a budget sometimes it really is cheaper to buy photos. Sports photography is tough to learn. And when you are talking little kids that means you need a lot of focal length in your lens (small objects, far away). If this makes you end up buying equipment that you would not normally have a need for, buying photos might end up being much cheaper.

    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.
  • Brett1000Brett1000 Registered Users Posts: 819 Major grins
    edited April 26, 2012
    A, where's the fun in that? B, no guarantee the pro will get a good shot. C, the pro might not be shooting action, only portraits. D, a crop camera with a 70-200 will be great for sports and many other things. E, where's the fun in that? ;)

    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)
Sign In or Register to comment.