Im super new and super amateur on this anyone can help me out?

frito00

Hi so as i said in the title i am super new in this world of cameras and pictures and lens so wondering what camera or what materials or stuff do i need or what do you recommend me to buy? I want a camera so i can shoot sports photos mostly basketball so wondering wich one would be the best that will suit for me since i want to do this like a hobbie but im not planing spending 1,000+ if i can something cheaper but if i have to spend 1,000 the i will but if i can get something good and cheaper that can take basketball pictures will be great thanks guys!! have a wonderfull day!

cmason

These kinds of questions asked on boards like DGrin will bring you a variety of responses, and in the end, you will likely be more confused than you think you are now. Photography forums are a pedantic bunch.

In order to take decent photos of sporting events, I recommend getting a digital SLR, and a fairly long lens. For example, any of the Canon Tx line, and perhaps the 70-300mm IS USM lens. Getting any of this used is a great option. The DSLR can shoot faster, focus faster and give you more response to get action shots over any point and shoot or bridge camera. The 70-300 IS USM is a decent telephoto with image stabilization. However, technique will be most important here, so ensure you have the proper shutter speed, ISO and aperture. If you don't know what those are, Google is your friend.

As for basketball, I find that to be one of the most challenging sports to photograph, after late night high school football. That is because basketball, in the US, is often played in poorly lit gyms. You will find that even with your new camera that you can't get action stopping shots, or they are so grainy that they look worse than your smartphone. And you can not use flash, as that will distract the players, and get you removed from the facility. The only way I have found to solve this successfully is to purchase a very expensive camera that excels in low light capability, such as the Nikon D610, D750, D800, or Canon 6D or 5DMkx. With a decent lens, you can take good action stopping photos at nearly any basketball game without any issues. But this will set you back easily $3000-$4000, so there is that.

kdog

^^ Great response by cmason. Can't even think of a thing to add.

mercphoto

Image stabilized lenses for sports is USELESS. If you can, save $$$ by getting the non-IS version. So you wanna shoot basketball, for under a grand.... hmmm.... that is really hard to do. Poor lighting, close fast action. You need good high ISO performance, fast glass (to deal with a lack of light), and fast focusing. Canon 5D Mark III or 7D Mark II. The 70-200/2.8L is a great, versatile lens. For basketball you don't need anything longer than that (the field is not large, the action is close). Heck, I shot motorsports with that lens. You could even easily get away with a prime lens from 85 to 135mm as well for less money. Just make sure the lens has a fast focus motor.

If you're trying to do this for profit your budget is too small. If you're trying to capture your own children, probably much cheaper to buy pictures taken by someone else.

mercphoto

Second advice, buy a used Canon 40D body and a used lens. Even with a used 70-200/2.8L lens (non image stabilized) you could get under your budget!

lifeinfocus

mercphoto wrote: »

Image stabilized lenses for sports is USELESS.

Curious why you say it is useless. Is that because you hope to be shooting at a faster shutter speed?

Thanks
Phil

mercphoto

Image stabilization is all about lens movement, not subject movement. It does NOTHING to "stabilize" a moving subject, like a basketball player. To do that, yes, you need fast shutter speeds. And if your shutter is fast you have no concern over camera shake.

cmason

I recommended the 70-300 IS USM because its a decent lens, not because it is IS. The non-IS model is not as good a lens. Personally, I prefer the 70-200 f4L, which is what I use, but for starting out, the 70-300 IS USM is a really good alternative, and a good all around lens.

pathfinder

Once one has a decent body - maybe a 7DMkII, and a decent lens - a 70-200 f2.8 - one will still really need image editing software too if one wants to shoot anything other than jpgs.

So there is some expense needed beyond just equipment.

Good sports photography is not easy to do with good equipment, and very hard to do, or almost impossible, with lesser equipment. It does depend, of course, on what the desired image quality level is too.

I agree that IS is not really needed for basketball, but it is nice to have none the less.

mercphoto

The 70-300 is a f/5.6 lens though, right? Indoor basketball, poor lighting, need fast glass.

I still think the used 40D route is a good idea. I shot with a 40D for a LONG time, motorsports mostly. I think, with the right lens (i.e. 2.8 or faster plus a fast focus motor) and it would be up to the task.

Tom Foster

Yeah, I agree with the previous posts! You're going to be struggling even with a thousand dollar (I presume) budget! Fast movements in low lighting makes for very tricky (and potentially frustrating) photography. You'll want a decent fast telephoto (f/2.8 ideally) and a camera that copes well with low light/ high ISO. Not sure you'll get that for 1000 dollars.

mercphoto

mercphoto wrote: »

Second advice, buy a used Canon 40D body and a used lens. Even with a used 70-200/2.8L lens (non image stabilized) you could get under your budget!

Also a used 1D Mark II (or better) will be inexpensive and also have the low-light fast focusing capabilities for basketball. The ISO is not good above 800, but otherwise the camera is FANTASTIC to shoot with and, at this point, is very reasonably priced on the used market.

I really don't think you can hit your budget with anything NEW.

ziggy53

mercphoto wrote: »

Also a used 1D Mark II (or better) will be inexpensive and also have the low-light fast focusing capabilities for basketball. The ISO is not good above 800, but otherwise the camera is FANTASTIC to shoot with and, at this point, is very reasonably priced on the used market.

I really don't think you can hit your budget with anything NEW.

Absolutely agree. I still have 2 - Canon 1D Mark II bodies, and ISO 1250 is usable with a modern RAW converter*. (Even ISO 3200 if you nail the exposure and do a lot of post-production processing and if you have a simple subject matter and print small. [That's a lot of "ands", I know.])

*(I recommend 64 bit RAW Therapee on a 64 bit Windows machine for a freeware/open-source, very competent RAW image processor. Otherwise, if you can budget it, the latest Capture One has an exemplary noise reduction processing for older Canon bodies, which covers both pattern/banding noise and random sensor noise.)

wave01

I think you have to ask your self what quality of picture you want.

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

NikonsandVstroms

No matter what body you get I'd say go for a Sigma 50-150 2.8, with the crop factor it'll be 225-240mm equivalent at the long end with Nikon or Canon and it costs 400-500 bucks used.

Now for the body, Canon suggestions seemed to be covered above so I'll throw in some Nikon ones. A D300 would have a great AF system more like the 1D mkII's than the 40D's and they're around 500 dollars.

After that the trade offs start. You could go for a D5200 which has fewer AF points but better high ISO performance as well as greater resolution and other sensor improvements for about 400 used. It's a much small camera missing a lot of the controls of the other Canon/Nikon models mentioned but you get that sensor 2 generations newer.

Brett1000

mercphoto wrote: »

Second advice, buy a used Canon 40D body and a used lens. Even with a used 70-200/2.8L lens (non image stabilized) you could get under your budget!

yes or a 60D but I would want a full frame or 1D or 1Ds series if I was shooting basketball or any indoor sports
But I suppose you got to start somewhere

frito00

Thanks everybody who help me out on this now i am searching more especific thanks once again