Hi. My name is Jay. I am new in here. Question about a camera

[Umpref19]

I am new and I was wondering what would be the best camera for a new person getting into sports photography? I am looking at a dslr either nikon or canon.. I am looking to spend around 250. I have been looking on eBay a lot of good deals.
However, I was wondering if anyone has any suggestions?

Thanks, Jay

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Jay,

Welcome to the CiC forums from me.

I have to say that really is not much budget for a DSLR and lens, although we don't know where you are, and therefore which currency you have 250 of.

If you could let us know the answers to these queries, it will help.

Thanks, Dave

[Umpref19]

I am in United States, Massachusetts. On eBay they have a lot of great deals for under 300 dollars

[PhotomanJohn]

Jay - First of all, welcome to CC. It would be helpful if you would provide your general location. Even country would help.

Now on to your question which is so broad with so many possible answers that it would be a very long post if I was to try. Tell us a little more about the kind of sports photography (indoor, outdoor and the like) you would like to get into and what you intend to do with the photos (web, small prints, large prints, etc). This will help decide how to divide you money between the camera body and lens and also if what you want to do can be reasonably accomplished on your current budget.

John

I was typing while Dave was posting. Sorry for the redundancy.

[Umpref19]

John. I live in the United States of America. Massachusetts. I plan on taking shots of basketball players inside and baseball players outside. They will be in motion of course. Then I will make small pictures and also fatheads that the kids can stick to the walls. However, first of all I just want to get use to taking pictures and seeing how they turn out...

[PhotomanJohn]

Jay - I took a look on Ebay and there are some used, entry level DSLRs listed for under $300. Those that have both the camera body and lens have an 18-55mm lens included. This is a slightly wide angle to slightly telephoto lens which would require that you get close to your subject to get much of a headshot. Decent action photos require a fairly high shutter speed which will be more difficult indoors where the light level is lower than outside during the day. This will require you to increase the ISO sensitivity which can add a grainy look to your photos.

In general you should be able to take snapshot level photos of the kids with these cameras. There is not a lot of difference between Nikon and Canon for similar models.

That's about all I can say of a general nature. Feel free to ask specific questions if you have some.

John

[Umpref19]

John thanks. What would you recommend that I get?

[inkista]

I'd recommend a bigger budget. Not helpful, I know. But it's just the realities of sports shooting.

Ideally, you'd probably want a Canon xxD or 7D or Nikon D90/D7x00 or D200/300/300S, and a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom lens and a 100-400ish supertelephoto zoom. That would probably total close to $4000 in lenses, and a $500-$1000 body, used. Them's just the breaks.

You can get by with a used entry-level camera (Canon XXXXD or XXXD, Nikon D40/D3x000 or D60/D5x00), a 50mm f/1.8 or 85/1.8 and a 55-250 or -300 lens, but your keeper rate is liable to be low, and you won't be completely happy with what you get. You're still going to want the stuff I listed in the previous paragraph.

Sports--and particularly indoor or night-time sports--happens to be one of those areas where you actually need the more expensive gear if you want to develop your skillz to the best of your ability. Sports move quickly, so you need to have a good fast action tracking autofocus system. An entry level may be ok at this, but the prosumer models have much more sophisticated and configurable autofocus systems (and with entry-level Nikons, you need a newer AF-S lens to autofocus at all; so don't get an AF 50/1.8D--you need the AF-S 50/1.8G). Particularly when it comes to tracking fast-moving action. Fast action not outside in the daytime is also a problem because to freeze the action, you need a fast shutter speed. So you have to get all your light from your aperture and iso setting. And used older entry-level bodies don't have the best noise performance at high iso settings; and low-cost lenses have small max. apertures (typically f/5.6), so you're up against it on autofocus, aperture, and iso.

The higher end newer bodies can give you better iso, better autofocus, and the expensive glass gives you more aperture and better AF performance. And it's still just an edge. You're still trying to shoot a difficult subject. You need good timing, anticipation, and access. And a lot of practice.

Just understand sports has a steeper learning curve and equipment requirements than most subjects.

[Umpref19]

Hi inkista. How about if I start out small right now and build up to those lens while I practice taking different shots of different things besides sports? I mention nikon and canon. However is there any other camera you would recommend?

[inkista]

If sports is your ultimate goal, I'd stick with a Canon or Nikon dSLR. There are some mirrorless cameras that are getting closer to dSLR tracking-AF performance (Olympus EM-1, and Fuji X-T1), but they're the exception rather than the rule, and they're pretty much just as costly and (currently) more limited on lens selections--particularly for sports and wildlife. Pentax and Sony have good camera bodies, and fast-action features, but the lens selection is smaller so if you are just starting out and don't know yet what you're going to be shooting, then you might run into more holes with those brands in terms of getting equipped for what you want to shoot--particularly if you're bargain-hunting on the used market and want autofocus.

Super-cheap used lenses, btw, may bring another issue with them, which would be compatibility with the current digital version of the mount system. Nikon & Pentax actually can use much older lenses from the manual focus era directly on the mount without adapters. Canon and Sony cannot (although they can adapt from both the Nikon & Pentax manual focus lenses). But those lenses cannot be autofocused or have their aperture set from the camera. If you do see a super cheap used lens, do some research on how much function you'll have (if any) on the camera body you have. With Canons, any Canon EF or EF-S lens should be fine; but older 3rd party lenses (e.g., Sigma, Tokina, Tamron) may have issues with electronic communication if the lenses are older than the Canon digital mount.

[Glenn NK]

Hi inkista. How about if I start out small right now and build up to those lens while I practice taking different shots of different things besides sports? I mention nikon and canon. However is there any other camera you would recommend?

Jay:

First off, I think Kathy has it right because there are no shortcuts (cheap options) for sports photography. One could argue that the only thing more difficult to focus and shoot than sports is bird photography (BIF = birds in flight). It requires a very accurate and fast focusing system. I have bodies that cost quite a bit more than the amount you suggest spending (30D and 5DII), and they are definitely not sports cameras because the AF systems just don't track well enough on a moving object. Of course you can use them, but as Kathy said, you will have very few keepers.

I shoot with Canon gear, and if I could afford and needed the best Canon body for sports of BIF, it would be this one:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-EOS-1D-1.../dp/B005Y3T1AI

As you can see, it's way past the few hundred dollar mark (that's just for the body).

I think your best option is something along the line of what Kathy suggested - rather than brand new, get a refurbished body.

One thing to keep in mind: bodies keep changing and improving; lenses less so. It's better to invest in good glass than in expensive bodies because the glass (lenses) will last for years.

Glenn

PS I just read Kathy's last post - again, I agree with what she says.

[ajohnw]

It's an impossible budget for a dslr.

I hesitate to suggest the option but there is a new breed of bridge cameras about. It might be an option for some one starting out. The sensors have got larger and the pixel counts have gone down. One that springs to mind is this one

http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/c...fications.html

When I looked at the SOC jpg's and raw files here I was pleasantly surprised.

http://www.photographyblog.com/revie...sample_images/

A big improvement in others I have looked at especially in detail level. Noise at ISO 800 isn't too difficult to get rid of from raw.

There are others with even larger sensors but the lack the zoom range. It has the range and the aperture but max ISO won't be anything like a dslr but I feel it could be usable at 400 and maybe 800. Past that going on results at 1280 I would say forget it.

BUT AS I SAID I HESITATE TO SUGGEST IT AS AN OPTION. The only way of finding out for sure is buy and try.

John
-

[Umpref19]

Thanks for everyone's advice on what I should get.. I am a beginner that is looking to take shots of kids playing basketball and baseball. These sports are not where these kids will be so fast that I can't take good shots.. With my phone and on burst I get Ok shots of them. Like someone said if I get a Ok body and a zoom lens will I be OK then? I don't want to go out and spend 4 thousand dollars on a camera when I am just starting out. What is a good camera that I can take burst shots with? Also a good zoom lens?

[Umpref19]

How would a package like this be for a beginner like myself
Nikon D60 Camera BodyNikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6G VR Lens (with lens cap)Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm*f/4-56G IF-ED VR*Lens (with hood and front & rear lens caps plus lens pouch)Nikon lens cleaning brushSeveral 52mm lens filters (Tiffen and other)Nikon battery charger and power cableNikon battery (plus 3 addition non-Nikon branded lithium-ion batteries)Additional battery chargerTamrac camera (backpack) bag (will hold camera and both lenses)Original boxes for Camera and Lenses with all manuals and original CD

[Glenn NK]

Jay:

I'm not familiar with Nikon gear, but I note that it was announced in early 2008 so it's not state of the art. However having said that, I'm still using my Canon 30D (which is older and only 8 MP and strangely enough it still produces very good images).

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond60/

The only danger is that if it "packs it up", it would not be economical to repair it. If and when my 30D does die, I will honour it with a decent burial. The Nikon lenses however will most likely keep serving you well (again I'm not familiar with Nikon lenses - others on this forum could provide some input here).

Glenn

[Black Pearl]

Just looked on eBay

You can get a Nikon D70 with a wide and long lens for around $200. In digital terms it's old but I had one and the results at the time and to fair even now will be perfect for what you need. To be able to get the very best shots you do need to throw money at photography but to be able to take good pictures you don't. Something like the D70 will get you going and give you all the basics you need to take a range of pictures while learning.

Review when it launched:

http://m.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/

I think people often forget that we didn't always have today's cameras with today's capabilities but somehow we still took amazing photographs.

[ajohnw]

I still have my Canon 300D and wont be getting rid of it.. The problem with cameras of this sort of age is ISO performance. It doesn't match up to more modern cameras. They also gain in that area after a fashion. Take a 30 sec exposure with my 300D and all I get is a few warm pixels. Sport shots need fast shutter speeds which in turn need either high ambient lighting levels or higher ISO settings. The other thing that probably wont come with this age of camera is image stability on the longer lens which I feel is essential for the OP's use and the lack of it will lead to a lot of frustration. When I bought my 300D I also bought the 70-300mm IS lens to go with it at the time that was largely aimed at use with film.

I just searched ebay.com for dslr's and set a price limit of $500 and included (IS,VR) in the search so that only cameras with a lens that had images stability would come up. There are about 200 odd at the moment. None have image stability on the longer lens. Many go to some trouble not to mention which lens has it - it will always be the 18-55mm.

If the OP wants to go in this direction I would say the best option is to wait for a more recent Nikon with the 18-105mm lens included and to buy the 55-300mm VR later as those tend to be cheap 2nd hand even though they aren't a bad lens. Problem is that the budget looks like it needs to be $500. That should get a D90. Change the search to Nikon 18-55mm and all sorts of prices are about from much lower to higher and the 55-300mm VR could still be bought separately later.

That's Nikon. As far as Canon is concerned VR becomes IS and they do have similar lenses. I would also say that at and below about 10-12mp sensors they will tend to have lower noise levels on the older cameras. The old 70-300mm IS lens is rather rare but they do crop up now and again but the IS isn't up to modern standards - it does work though. I suspect this would make Canon a more expensive option. I should add that the digital lenses that they introduced with the early 6mp cameras and for some time after that just wont work out on more modern high pixel count cameras. That's why I bought film lenses to go with mine. I'd guess the same applies to Nikon so having VR on the end does count after a fashion just as IS does on Canon.

Curious - did anyone look at the shots the bridge camera produced? I looked at a couple of raw files including the misty 300mm ISO 800 building shot. Seems this camera is over budget though. I thought I had seen it for about £300 in the UK and $ often = £. Canon are now offering slightly chopped down APS bridge cameras but at that sensor size they lack the long zoom. There are a number about now using a 1/1.7 sensor size and compared with the usual really tiny 1/2.7 sensor stuff they appear to be a lot better.

John
-

[Black Pearl]

The OP has $250 not $500 - finding and recommending stuff that is twice as expensive is pointless. I never understand this with forums where a budget has been given but some members simply refuse to see sense - not everyone has more money to spend and not everyone wants to even if they did.

Yes the D70 is old but at the time everyone had similar performance to play with yet everyone could still take pictures with it - at the time a D2x was at the top end of available performance yet it topped out at 800iso. Sports photographers still managed to take great pictures with it though along with anyone else who bought it as a professional machine.
I took tens of thousands of shots with my D70 and still have some of them on the walls enlarged and framed.

Jay you would get a good few years of service from an older camera and be able to take absolutely amazing pictures with it. Don't be put off by people who say you have to spend more - you don't.

[ajohnw]

The OP has $250 not $500 - finding and recommending stuff that is twice as expensive is pointless. I never understand this with forums where a budget has been given but some members simply refuse to see sense - not everyone has more money to spend and not everyone wants to even if they did.

Yes the D70 is old but at the time everyone had similar performance to play with yet everyone could still take pictures with it - at the time a D2x was at the top end of available performance yet it topped out at 800iso. Sports photographers still managed to take great pictures with it though along with anyone else who bought it as a professional machine.
I took tens of thousands of shots with my D70 and still have some of them on the walls enlarged and framed.

Jay you would get a good few years of service from an older camera and be able to take absolutely amazing pictures with it. Don't be put off by people who say you have to spend more - you don't.

Fine but perhaps you should also have mentioned that IS or VR is rather a good idea on longer lenses. If you had I wouldn't have bothered posting.

John
-

[Glenn NK]

I agree that optically stabilized lenses are a good idea, but when they put the cost beyond the available budget, some other approach is in order.

I'd love to have the newest Canon 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens with IS, but even though I can afford it, I cannot justify the additional cost for what it provides.

Glenn