Best sports photography cameras?

[Derrel]

For the credientialed shooter (press access pass) there are PLENTY of good photos that can be made with modest equipment, from very close distances to the athletes. Not every shot needs to look like today's cliche sports shot, with a blown-out backdrop, and half of an athlete shown in a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 "cliche shot" framing. There are many places where a 35mm lens, or 50mm lens, or an 85mm lens, will show two or three athletes and some of the playing field/court/surface, and you will make a sports photo that shows context for the shot, and some of the stadium/field/court.

Again, not every shot needs to be shot with a 300/2.8 or 400/2.8 lens! There are thousands of great sporting event photos that show "the scene", and show "the context" of the event. This is a distinction lost on people who rely exclusively on long-lens, tightly-composed, "hero shot" framing of a single athlete. This type of shot has becomne a shopworn cliche, brought aboiuyt by reliance on toolks that have only one trick up their sleeve...namely, the tight shot, the defocused backdrop, the 300/2.8 "look", or the 400/2.8 "look".

Case in point....one of ther world's most-iconic sports images, made with a short focal length or "normal lens" ....this famous image shows us all the context of the event! Imaginbe hgow much LESS-powerfukl this imnage would be if it had been shot with a superetelephoto lens, and showed ONLY the face of Cassius Clay, and NOT his opponent, and NOT the ring,and not any of the press corps behind Clay!

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2014-08-01-liston2.jpg

Get started shooting sports with what you can afford! I started with an Argus Argoflex TLR in the mid-1970's. Today's cheaper, entry-level Nikon or Canon d-slr is 100 times better a camera than I had to start with. It is not just the gear, it's also the guy or gal behind the camera, and how the shot is made.

 

[Solarflare]

The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)

WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.

I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.

That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.

a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.

The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.

 

[table1349]

Well if were going to play Fan Boy: Canon EOS 7D Mark II Body Refurbished

 

[EIngerson]

Go learn the sports you're shooting. Use the gear you currently have and find out where its lacking. Get a good understanding of the situations these sports put you in, then get the gear that best suits your needs. The best way to understand sports photography is to get out there and do it. As could be said for any genre of photography.

Higher end camera like the Canon 1Dx or the Nikon D5 are expensive, but more than capable of anything you'd want to shoot.

Good luck and have fun

 

[BrentC]

The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)

WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.

I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.

That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.

a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.

The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.

Yes in fact the EM1 MarkII can handle sports photography. There are plenty of examples of it if you do a search. The MKII can handle fast action easily. And the lenses are there. Add Pro Capture to the mix and its quite an amazing sports camera. It is the go to m43 camera for action/wildlife.

You would have been correct before the EM1 MKII came out.

 

[Derrel]

Something tells me an m43 camera is vastly better than the 1940 Argoflex twin-lens reflex I started out when I was shooting my team's track and field meets with back in the mid-1970's ...my Argoflex had an uncoated f/4.5 taking lens and a top shutter speed of 1/200 second...and it had knob winding. By way of contrast, the Olympus is a very modern, sohphisticated camera.

Argus Argoflex E - Matt's Classic Cameras

Still...I think a Nikon D5300 and 18-55 VR zoom lens, plus maybe the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S G series lens would be a SWEET starter camera outfit for the beginning sports shooter.

 

[table1349]

The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)

WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.

I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.

That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.

a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.

The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.

Yes in fact the EM1 MarkII can handle sports photography. There are plenty of examples of it if you do a search. The MKII can handle fast action easily. And the lenses are there. Add Pro Capture to the mix and its quite an amazing sports camera. It is the go to m43 camera for action/wildlife.

You would have been correct before the EM1 MKII came out.

Sorry but a 4/3 sensor that has poor high ISO range and performance is not the camera for anyone serious about shooting sports and the OP indicated that they want to get into the profession of shooting sports. the 1.3 sensor of the old 1D was acceptable. The 1Dx and 1Dx MkII's both have full frame sensors. APS-C is an acceptable, although not perfect, sensor size for sports. The Nikon D500 and Canon 7D MkII APS- C bodies have a big enough sensor with far greater usable ISO range.

It is fine for mom and pop snap shots of their son or daughter but not for serious sports photography.

 

[MSnowy]

The school I'm going to offers various things such as Football, Tennis, Golf, and Volleyball. I've talked to various people that do the school photography and I'm planning on learning from them. I'm not in any respect professional. Just trying to figure out where to start and get some experience for my passion in photography.

Along with buying your own gear check with the media department at your school. Sometimes they have camera gear that you can borrow to use on school related projects.

 

[chuasam]

The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)

WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.

I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.

That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.

a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.

The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.

Yes in fact the EM1 MarkII can handle sports photography. There are plenty of examples of it if you do a search. The MKII can handle fast action easily. And the lenses are there. Add Pro Capture to the mix and its quite an amazing sports camera. It is the go to m43 camera for action/wildlife.

You would have been correct before the EM1 MKII came out.

Sorry but a 4/3 sensor that has poor high ISO range and performance is not the camera for anyone serious about shooting sports and the OP indicated that they want to get into the profession of shooting sports. the 1.3 sensor of the old 1D was acceptable. The 1Dx and 1Dx MkII's both have full frame sensors. APS-C is an acceptable, although not perfect, sensor size for sports. The Nikon D500 and Canon 7D MkII APS- C bodies have a big enough sensor with far greater usable ISO range.

It is fine for mom and pop snap shots of their son or daughter but not for serious sports photography.

why stop at full frame? why not go medium format if you want dynamic range?
the µ4/3rd sensor is more than adequate for sports.
Weather sealing and smaller lenses make it much more convenient when shooting on location.
Is the D5 superior in high ISO? of course..
is the Olympus EM1 Mk2 good enough? YES.

 

[table1349]

The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)

WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.

I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.

That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.

a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.

The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.

Yes in fact the EM1 MarkII can handle sports photography. There are plenty of examples of it if you do a search. The MKII can handle fast action easily. And the lenses are there. Add Pro Capture to the mix and its quite an amazing sports camera. It is the go to m43 camera for action/wildlife.

You would have been correct before the EM1 MKII came out.

Sorry but a 4/3 sensor that has poor high ISO range and performance is not the camera for anyone serious about shooting sports and the OP indicated that they want to get into the profession of shooting sports. the 1.3 sensor of the old 1D was acceptable. The 1Dx and 1Dx MkII's both have full frame sensors. APS-C is an acceptable, although not perfect, sensor size for sports. The Nikon D500 and Canon 7D MkII APS- C bodies have a big enough sensor with far greater usable ISO range.

It is fine for mom and pop snap shots of their son or daughter but not for serious sports photography.

why stop at full frame? why not go medium format if you want dynamic range?
the µ4/3rd sensor is more than adequate for sports.
Weather sealing and smaller lenses make it much more convenient when shooting on location.
Is the D5 superior in high ISO? of course..
is the Olympus EM1 Mk2 good enough? YES.

If that was true that is what you would see on the sidelines,baselines, etc. You don't and there is a simple reason. You can be a rah rah fan boy all you want, it doesn't change reality.

 

[BrentC]

The cheapest you can get is a D500, 7D, or EM1 Mk2 (all hovering in the $2k body only)

WHAT ??!?!?!?!?!?

You gotta be frigging kidding. You really would suggest a 4/3 for professional sport photography ?!?!? Whow. Dude, fanboy or not, are you not aware that that system has no friggin performance and no friggin lenses ?

Given that you specify two cameras that actually qualify well for this task, I dont really see what got into you to suggest to somebody to throw this much money away on a camera that couldnt perform.

I'm thinking of buying used/refurbished and I found a good Nikon D7500 on Amazon for $950 plus a kit lens.

That cant be true. The D7500 is brand new, I think its not even out yet, and its much more expensive, and thats without lens.

a D7500 is a baby D500 and a good start.

The D7500 is a really poor Omen for Nikons future. Its definitely not anything like a "baby D500". In fact its not even a valid D7200 successor. Its much more of a D5600 plus, a grossly overpriced entry level camera. A lot of professional features got stripped, others stayed - leaving a really weird misdesign behind. Given how awesome the D7x00 line was before and how good the D500 is, I really dont know what to make out of the D7500. Its frankly a camera for nobody.

Yes in fact the EM1 MarkII can handle sports photography. There are plenty of examples of it if you do a search. The MKII can handle fast action easily. And the lenses are there. Add Pro Capture to the mix and its quite an amazing sports camera. It is the go to m43 camera for action/wildlife.

You would have been correct before the EM1 MKII came out.

Sorry but a 4/3 sensor that has poor high ISO range and performance is not the camera for anyone serious about shooting sports and the OP indicated that they want to get into the profession of shooting sports. the 1.3 sensor of the old 1D was acceptable. The 1Dx and 1Dx MkII's both have full frame sensors. APS-C is an acceptable, although not perfect, sensor size for sports. The Nikon D500 and Canon 7D MkII APS- C bodies have a big enough sensor with far greater usable ISO range.

It is fine for mom and pop snap shots of their son or daughter but not for serious sports photography.

why stop at full frame? why not go medium format if you want dynamic range?
the µ4/3rd sensor is more than adequate for sports.
Weather sealing and smaller lenses make it much more convenient when shooting on location.
Is the D5 superior in high ISO? of course..
is the Olympus EM1 Mk2 good enough? YES.

If that was true that is what you would see on the sidelines,baselines, etc. You don't and there is a simple reason. You can be a rah rah fan boy all you want, it doesn't change reality.

Rah rah fanboy? Seriously? More like more snobbery from the FF people. Maybe do a little research before dismissing something. There are plenty of examples in the mirrorless forums of professionals actually using the EM1 MKii for sports. And doing it quite well thank you. Is it better then the best DSLR's for sports? No. But it is more than capable and rivals most DSLR's. No one here is saying its the best.

You remind of my first time going to my local photography club. I was talking with some of the guys because I was thinking of joining. I told them I like to do wildlife photography. They asked me what I shooting and when I told them you can just see the look on their face dismissing me. One of them actually sneered at me. If I wasn't using FF I was not a serious photographer. I left and never returned.

I am no fanboy, and frankly couldn't care less what camera someone uses. I chose mine for specific reasons and it works for me. But I am going to correct someone when they are wrong and that has nothing to do with being a fan boy.

Do a little research first before you dismiss something.

 

[table1349]

As will I. You Are Wrong. Someday they may, but for now they are not. Editors like/want high quality images, not just for paper publication but digital publications as well. Don't believe me ask Brad Smith, Claire Bourgeois, or John Blackmar.

I have seen some mirrorless in the stands in the hands of fans, but I am on the sidelines and in the arenas and field houses shooting not in the stands and I have yet to see any of the other credentialed photographers shooting with a mirrorless.

These days working sports photographers will change gear faster than some people change underwear and if what you said was true they would have made the switch.

As for research, why don't you get down on the sidelines with the rest of us and take a look at the real business of sports photography.

 

[pixmedic]

what about a mirrorless using manual focus?
considering sports were being photographed long before AF was even a thing, would there be a difference in using a mirrorless with manual focus than from
someone years ago using a 35mm film camera with a manual focus lens? OR early digital cameras, before 151pt+ AF systems?
for instance... a difference between a 35mm film camera with a 300mm f/2.8 Ais lens -vs- the EM1 II with a 300mm f/4 IS PRO lens using AF?

im actually pretty curious about whether someone using that Olympus EM1 mark II using AF could keep up with someone using a digital camera but an older MF tele lens?

is my entire comparison question irrelevant because of expectations of modern equipment and a non-acceptance of what past photographers would have produced on their film gear by media sources today?

im fortunate that for the type of work I do, I don't need all that sophisticated of a setup... the demands on portrait gear are pretty low in comparison.

 

[table1349]

Here is the basic downfall at this point.

EM1 Mk II: ISO Sensitivity: 200-6400 (Extended Mode: 64-25600) - 4/3

7D Mk II: ISO Sensitivity:100-16000 (Extended Mode: 100-51200) - APS-C

1Dx Mk II: ISO Sensitivity: 100-51200 (Extended Mode: 50-409600) - FF

Nikon D500: ISO Sensitivity: 100-51200 (Extended Mode: 50-1640000) - APS-C

Nikon D5: ISO Sensitivity:100-102400 (Extended Mode: 50-3280000) - FF


Here is virtually any field house or sport under the light to our eyes.

Here is the same field house or sport under the lights to a camera.

Sensor size and ISO are all important in this realm.


As for focus, yes there would be a difference between focusing 45 years ago and now and I can tell you why in two words. Split Prism.

The split prism viewfinder allowed for the human eye to much more easily track and keep action in focus then either the modern DSLR or EVF would today with a manual lens. When I started in 1972 zoom lenses were novelties and junk. Primes were the lenses not only of choice but necessity. With practice you could get quite good at focus tracking with the split prism viewfinder, especially with the Nikon style split prism. Nikon and I believe Canon used the 45 degree split prism were Pentax used a horizontal split prism. I don't know what Minolta was using, there weren't a lot of Minolta users where I was then.

Spray and Pray is also not new. One of Nikon F2's was a high speed Sapporo that came out in 1972 and shot 7 frames a second with the high speed motor drive. I managed to add one to my collection years later when film took it's first big nose dive and they could be found relatively cheap. Not so much now.

Thing was spray and pray then usually meant at a smaller aperture providing a deeper DOF. Today's modern much improved AF allows for shallower DOF's while tracking faster than most humans could. Remember also that most film cameras at the time had about a 3 frame per second burst mode and only the really dedicated had large film backs.

 

[pixmedic]

Here is the basic downfall at this point.

EM1 Mk II: ISO Sensitivity: 200-6400 (Extended Mode: 64-25600) - 4/3

7D Mk II: ISO Sensitivity:100-16000 (Extended Mode: 100-51200) - APS-C

1Dx Mk II: ISO Sensitivity: 100-51200 (Extended Mode: 50-409600) - FF

Nikon D500: ISO Sensitivity: 100-51200 (Extended Mode: 50-1640000) - APS-C

Nikon D5: ISO Sensitivity:100-102400 (Extended Mode: 50-3280000) - FF


Here is virtually any field house or sport under the light to our eyes.

Here is the same field house or sport under the lights to a camera.
View attachment 139932

Sensor size and ISO are all important in this realm.


As for focus, yes there would be a difference between focusing 45 years ago and now and I can tell you why in two words. Split Prism.

The split prism viewfinder allowed for the human eye to much more easily track and keep action in focus then either the modern DSLR or EVF would today with a manual lens. When I started in 1972 zoom lenses were novelties and junk. Primes were the lenses not only of choice but necessity. With practice you could get quite good at focus tracking with the split prism viewfinder, especially with the Nikon style split prism. Nikon and I believe Canon used the 45 degree split prism were Pentax used a horizontal split prism. I don't know what Minolta was using, there weren't a lot of Minolta users where I was then.

Spray and Pray is also not new. One of Nikon F2's was a high speed Sapporo that came out in 1972 and shot 7 frames a second with the high speed motor drive. I managed to add one to my collection years later when film took it's first big nose dive and they could be found relatively cheap. Not so much now.

Thing was spray and pray then usually meant at a smaller aperture providing a deeper DOF. Today's modern much improved AF allows for shallower DOF's while tracking faster than most humans could. Remember also that most film cameras at the time had about a 3 frame per second burst mode and only the really dedicated had large film backs.

OK but... since you mention ISO...
where do film ASA ratings come into play from back in the day?
do 35mm film cameras with a fast prime still capture more light than a modern smaller sensor DSLR with a fast prime?
the Oly might max out at ISO 6400, but...is that worse than ASA 400 film?
if sensor size and ISO are so important, how does your list stack up to what film provided?