Acquiring first "real" camera. Want good sports/action and low light shooting. -$1K

[Captainobvious99]

Good points and advice by all. I think we are going to up the budget slightly and go with either a Canon 70D or a D7100 along with a zoom and either the 50 or 85/1.8 AF-S. Since the 70D/D7100 have better AF systems and will be the better choice for sports shooting, I figure we won't need to upgrade this camera for many years to come. The 2 lenses will provide a great base for most of our shooting and we can determine what lenses would be most suited for us by using and learning with these for a while. Sorry to have gummed up the Sony section with this...I probably should have posted it elsewhere since it contains much about a variety of manufacturers. Thank you all for your advice, we're excited to get something and start shooting

 

[ConradM]

Good points and advice by all. I think we are going to up the budget slightly and go with either a Canon 70D or a D7100 along with a zoom and either the 50 or 85/1.8 AF-S. Sorry to have gummed up the Sony section with this...I probably should have posted it elsewhere since it contains much about a variety of manufacturers. Thank you all for your advice, we're excited to get something and start shooting

If you're upping your budget then check out the a77 mark 2. You won't find a faster APSC DSLR. (12fps, 79 point AF, 60 frame JPEG buffer) Low light performance is also supposed to be improved over the a77.

 

[Captainobvious99]

I haven't seen much in the way of comparisons with performance of the A77mkII vs the 70D or D7100. Does it compare favorably? Also, I'll have to look into lens selection because I'm thinking that would be the biggest sticking point.

 

[ConradM]

I haven't seen much in the way of comparisons with performance of the A77mkII vs the 70D or D7100. Does it compare favorably? Also, I'll have to look into lens selection because I'm thinking that would be the biggest sticking point.

Well the D7100 is 6fps vs 12 for the a77. Sony's also generally have an edge in AF-C thanks to their translucent mirror.

 

[The_Traveler]

You did mention the budget but nothing about your experience.
To be perfectly honest, if you have no experience as a photographer, it is a bit early to consider putting a good deal of money (and that's what it will take) into a setup for sports photography.
Without experience, you won't be able to correctly judge if your less-than-optimum results are the fault of your inexperience or the shortcomings of the camera.
If you look at the complaints of people here about camera problems, my guess is that 85% or more are not the camera but the user.

Not being able to produce decent shots is a real bummer when you have some ideal results in mind.

I would suggest you go into this slowly with a bridge camera, see if you like photography and can develop the skills you need to make the purchase of a dslr and lens sensible.

 

[robbins.photo]

The upside to the sony would be the faster frame rate, the downside would be lens selection, it will be more limited than Nikon. Granted the lenses available for the A mount will probably be more numerous and have better options than what's out there for the F mount, but still your looking at limiting your lens selection quite a bit so best to check and make sure they have lenses available in you price range that will do what you need first.

The other thing to consider would be high ISO to noise, I know the D7100 had a much better high ISO to noise ratio that the original A77, making it a better choice for lowlight shooting. I'm not sure about the A77 Mk II - I'll poke around and see what I can find.

 

[Vince.1551]

D5300

 

[Captainobvious99]

You did mention the budget but nothing about your experience.
To be perfectly honest, if you have no experience as a photographer, it is a bit early to consider putting a good deal of money (and that's what it will take) into a setup for sports photography.
Without experience, you won't be able to correctly judge if your less-than-optimum results are the fault of your inexperience or the shortcomings of the camera.
If you look at the complaints of people here about camera problems, my guess is that 85% or more are not the camera but the user.

Not being able to produce decent shots is a real bummer when you have some ideal results in mind.

I would suggest you go into this slowly with a bridge camera, see if you like photography and can develop the skills you need to make the purchase of a dslr and lens sensible.

Your assessment makes sense. My experience is very limited, having a photography class in high school many years back (actual film!) and being just a casual shooter with low grade equipment these days. My plan is actually to enroll my wife and I in a photography class at our local community college so we can learn the craft from the ground up and spend some quality time together. While I see the benefit of doing a bridge camera to throw this at the wall and see if it sticks, the other side of me has learned the lesson more times than I care to admit to simply "do it right the first time" because it saves time, money and frustration in the long run. I attend and play in many sporting events as does she and we would certainly find use for a good action camera setup for our own enjoyment. It may cost a little more up front, but we'll have the capability of capturing great shots in the environment we're in without gear being a question mark. At least then we know if the shots are poor, it's our own fault!


-Steve

 

[Captainobvious99]

The upside to the sony would be the faster frame rate, the downside would be lens selection, it will be more limited than Nikon. Granted the lenses available for the A mount will probably be more numerous and have better options than what's out there for the F mount, but still your looking at limiting your lens selection quite a bit so best to check and make sure they have lenses available in you price range that will do what you need first.

The other thing to consider would be high ISO to noise, I know the D7100 had a much better high ISO to noise ratio that the original A77, making it a better choice for lowlight shooting. I'm not sure about the A77 Mk II - I'll poke around and see what I can find.

Thank you, sir!

I'm not opposed to a Sony DSLR- I'm just apprehensive about the lens selection. I mean, there are a good number available and plenty of smaller low/mid F zooms and low F primes from Sony, Sigma and Tamron, but I'm not sure about performance. One benefit would be (I believe) in body image stabilization.

 

[robbins.photo]

The upside to the sony would be the faster frame rate, the downside would be lens selection, it will be more limited than Nikon. Granted the lenses available for the A mount will probably be more numerous and have better options than what's out there for the F mount, but still your looking at limiting your lens selection quite a bit so best to check and make sure they have lenses available in you price range that will do what you need first.

The other thing to consider would be high ISO to noise, I know the D7100 had a much better high ISO to noise ratio that the original A77, making it a better choice for lowlight shooting. I'm not sure about the A77 Mk II - I'll poke around and see what I can find.

Thank you, sir!

I'm not opposed to a Sony DSLR- I'm just apprehensive about the lens selection. I mean, there are a good number available and plenty of smaller low/mid F zooms and low F primes from Sony, Sigma and Tamron, but I'm not sure about performance. One benefit would be (I believe) in body image stabilization.

Well really stabilization is nice but from experience I can tell you that with action shots normally you want your shutter speed high enough that it becomes a moot point in most cases.

The faster frame rate would be nice but really I think in the long run you'll most likely be better off with the nikon.

 

[ConradM]

The upside to the sony would be the faster frame rate, the downside would be lens selection, it will be more limited than Nikon. Granted the lenses available for the A mount will probably be more numerous and have better options than what's out there for the F mount, but still your looking at limiting your lens selection quite a bit so best to check and make sure they have lenses available in you price range that will do what you need first.

The other thing to consider would be high ISO to noise, I know the D7100 had a much better high ISO to noise ratio that the original A77, making it a better choice for lowlight shooting. I'm not sure about the A77 Mk II - I'll poke around and see what I can find.

Thank you, sir!

I'm not opposed to a Sony DSLR- I'm just apprehensive about the lens selection. I mean, there are a good number available and plenty of smaller low/mid F zooms and low F primes from Sony, Sigma and Tamron, but I'm not sure about performance. One benefit would be (I believe) in body image stabilization.

Sony lenses perform great, it won't be your limiting factor. Image stabilization is one good benefit. Not so much for sports but for low shutter speeds in general. But there are many more benefits using a sony alpha. They have an electronic viewfinder so you always see what you're shooting in real time. If you spin the dial to adjust shutter speed or aperture you see the exposure changing in the viewfinder, not something you can do with a canon or nikon.

Alpha's also have a fixed as opposed to flipping mirror which allows for auto focus even in between shots. Conventional DSLR's stop focusing when the mirror flips up. You can guess which works better for sports on a mid-level DSLR.

Here's a sample video of the a77 mark 2. Huge jpeg buffer, and crazy continuous AF -



That's at 12 fps.