Camera And Lens Recommendation For Photographing Cross-Country Races At Dusk

Bagman · Aug 25, 2013

Hello all, this is my first post. I have a question for which I would like your recommendations. I have been designated as the photographer for my son's high school cross-country team and they run their meets in the afternoon. Near the end of the season, it is dusk when the races are run. I am looking for a camera and fast lens setup that I can shoot wide open to capture the runners later in the season during dusk. I would like a lens with an focal length of around 130 mm to 150 mm and wanted to keep my cost for the camera and lens around $1000 or less and am willing to go the used route. I was thinking that I could use a 105 mm Nikon FX prime lens and a used Nikon DX body. However, the 105 mm Nikon lenses do not have VR.

Does anyone have any thoughts? I currently have a Fuji X10 and it has to be pre-focused as it cannot focus quickly enough with a runner coming toward me. I am not happy with the Fuji's results as the runner is too close to me when I am taking the pictures and I need a setup with more reach than its equivalent 112 mm focal distance. I am ok with pre-focusing on a spot.

Is VR on the lens important for shooting in dusk? (For instance Nikon makes a 2.8 F-stop 105 mm lens with VR and a 2.0 F-stop 105 mm lens without VR - which would be better?).
Is there a lens out there that can automatically focus quickly enough in a dusk environment with a runner coming toward me, understanding that I want to keep my costs low? Or will I need to manually focus on a spot before the runner gets there?
Will a zoom that has an F-stop of much greater than 2.0 or 2.8 be too slow? (This is my assumption, but many of these have anti-vibration systems.)
What Nikon body should I consider if I want to be able to shoot in small bursts with several shots taken in a partial second?
What systems other than Nikon should I consider?

Thanks in advance

Gavjenks · Aug 25, 2013

If you are the official photographer and thus probably have permission to do so, have you considered setting up flash lighting at a certain point along the course?

If the runners are warned of this ahead of time, it shouldn't be startling or unsafe. You would also of course pick a spot that is particularly level and free of things to trip on or whatever.

Or if flash is too distracting, strong continuous lighting?

Anyway, some of the other things you asked:

VR: no, it is useless for freezing running people's motion. VR only prevents your own hand shaking from blurring the image.
Fast bodies and lenses: These things are not compatible with "keeping costs low." The best low light performers for bodies are full frame cameras, which usually run around $1500-3000 for the lower end models. And very fast lenses are usually $500 at least, and a lot more ($1500+) if you want long fast lenses with zoom, like a 70-200 2.8.

Lighting is much cheaper. Few bucks for a flash trigger (or no trigger if continuous lighting), $50 for a nice stand, tie it down with tent stakes or sandbags, and then put a studio strobe ($250 or so) and a nice battery pack and inverter ($200-300 or so) on it to work without an outlet, and then use any random body and lens you want.

So like $500 for lighting, versus maybe $2500 for really major improvements in low light bodies and fast lenses.
Used equipment would be more like $300 and $1500 respectively.

Gavjenks · Aug 25, 2013

Another option if you are able to get your car within extension cord's length of the race course and at a slightly higher elevation than the runners would be to go to home depot or whatever, buy a cheap car inverter with sufficient wattage rating, and then run your engine to power a nice big halogen lamp looking down a bit on them. Put some kind of diffusing fabric between the light and them (follow light's safety instructions for distance to not catch stuff on fire), and you have yourself a $100-150 solution.

Or similar hackish solutions, if you can get away with them.

Derrel · Aug 25, 2013

Image stabilization is not going to be the issue...SUBJECT movement is going to be the more-pressing worry. In 2005 and 2006 I shot two or three,sometimes four, sports assignments a week for a pair of local newspapers, and back in 2005, was stuck using the Nikon D1h and later that year in May, I bought the brand new Nikon D2x as the then-current Nikon model of the market at the time. I'm actually familiar with bad-light sports shooting, and can tell you that Vibration Reduction is not what you need--you need sheer, raw lens speed much more than you need VR.

If you can get close, a 50mm f/1.8 lens is fine. An 85mm f/1.8 lens is also fine. Why these lenses? Well, they are light, small, easy to frame with, and they do not magnify the subject a whole lot, so with image magnification low, visible blur is not a huge issue, nor is ultra-demanding focusing. If you are "the official" photographer, it is assumed that you will have access, as opposed to being cordoned off and shooting from wayyyyyy back. So, start thinking like the "official photographer" for the team, and think about being CLOSE.

You need to capture an image that's well-focused, and which has movement of the athlete's stopped. When runners approach the camera head-on, it takes less shutter speed to stop them than when they are moving across the film plane, as in a direct side-view, so that makes it easiest to stop them when they are running full-face, approaching the camera. That also shows their faces and expressions, and their school uniform front and is kind of "the yearbook" approach. Also, on the start, a 50mm or 85mm lens from 20 yards shows a good bunch of athletes, and shows the runners in situ...in context...which again, differs from the uber-tight, 300mm tele-shot that a lot of pro shooters think is what yearbook photos are about, but are not.

Forget the VR...besides, and f/2.8 macro-tele is a lousy sports lens choice; an 85mm f/1.8 is one of the FASTEST-focusing lenses in almost any brand's lineup.Same with 50mm f/1.8 Nikkors, which are front-cell focusing designs that move the focusing group very fast. Use whatever camera you can afford. Consider using a group dynamic AF or "pattern" focusing approach if you have a lower-end body. DO some tests to see how the combo you have actually focuses. If your gear and you cannot focus on the fly, then yeah, pre-focus and pick the runners off one by one as they approach a point where you are off to the side and 20 feet distant.

Gavjenks · Aug 25, 2013

Oh also, if you happen to own a nice manufacturer flash, or one of the better 3rd party ones (like Yongnuo), then you can put it on your camera body, and even if you don't use the actual flash as a flash, they have infrared focus assisting lasers/lights that will make your lenses significantly more capable of focusing in the dark.

This won't work terribly well with moving subjects, but it may help enough. Specially if you already own that equipment.

Bagman · Aug 26, 2013

All,

After looking around a bit and reading the responses let me propose four potential camera systems. I still need to get this first before I consider lighting, which I can do a bit later in the season when the sun sets later. Again, I don't want to exceed $1000 for my system if possible and this would include lighting.

For all of these options, I would get a used camera off of Craigslist, Ebay, or from one of the NY camera stores that does much online business.

System A: Canon half frame sensor DSLR and the Canon 100 mm F2.0 USM EF lens. <-- This is the only reasonably priced fast 100 mm lens with automatic focusing that I can find with a new lens being less than $500 and used even less. With a Canon half frame sensor camera, this would give me a 160 mm equivalent system.

System B: Canon half frame sensor DSLR and the Canon 85 mm F1.8 USM EF lens. <-- Lens new is around $420. Would be a 136 mm equivalent system.

System C: Nikon half frame sensor DSLR (DX sensor) and the Nikkor 85 mm F1.8G AF-S lens. <-- Lens new is around $500. Would be a 128 mm equivalent system with a DX sensor camera

System D: Nikon half frame sensor DSLR (DX sensor) and the out of production Nikkor 105 mm F2.5 AI lens <-- Used lens around $200. Would give up lens speed and automatic focusing, but would be the least expensive.

Please let me know your thoughts on these systems.

Also, because of my lack of digital DSLR usage, I am interested in what is the acceptable ISO range that the cameras that I am considering can operate within.

Am I ok with a half frame sensor camera or do I really need to jump up to a full frame sensor camera which would force me into a lower resolution out of production early system based on my budget?

I appreciate all of your responses, wisdom, and guidance.

KmH · Aug 26, 2013

I kind of put outfits like Quantum, Nissin, Sigma in the "better 3rd party flash units" category.

Derrel · Aug 26, 2013

I think you'd be fine with an APS-C camera (what you're calling half-frame) actually, and with that, an 85mm f/1.8 is a good lens--short, light, easy to focus, easy to hand-hold, not too long. It is actually possible to have too LONG of a lens when one is photographing athletic events and using an APS-C body. When one has "official access", and is relatively close, a long super-tele type lens is not always a plus; it can be a drawback.

The Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Ai-S is a fabulous manual focusing lens; I own two of them, one 30+ years old, the other a very late-run MF model I got for a song. The 105mm pre-Ai is one of *the* lenses that Nikon made its 1960's reputation on. The 105 Ai is nice; the 105 Ai-S model has a built-in lenshood, AND much faster focusing "throw", and is in my considerable Nikon experience, perhaps THE BEST manual focuser EVER made; the focus throw, the lightness, the dampening, the overall focusing action, the focal length and its magnification + the shallow DOF made the 105/2.5 Ai-S, literally, one of the easiest lenses to manual focus with. it's long enough to focus well on today's d-slr's, although that's not as easily as with a proper manual focusing screen. But still--I think an AF lens would be better for you.

Canon 100/2...don't know it from my own Canon ownership...it's not popular, but I've seen its images--it's a nice lens, with lovely imaging character. A guy I used to know shot the daylights out of the 100/2...it has a lovely "look" to its images. I've been impressed with my Canon 85/1.8--it focuses fast,and well, Same with my 85/1.8-G--focuses FAST, and well.

George Beinhorn · Sep 26, 2014

I know this is a year late. An interesting thread with much useful advice. But a couple of suggestions might help you come home with photos you'll be much more satisfied with.

1. You don't need elaborate lighting. If the runners' faces are backlit, set your camera (manually or in menus/dials) to overexpose by anywhere from one-half to two f-stops or more. Most DSLRs today have an automatic feature for evening-out the exposure to preserve shadow detail; but I would not rely on it. Test it in advance! It's very easy. At a time of day with lighting similar to what's expected at race time, take a series of photos of a person standing still with back turned to the sun, with exposure settings varied: +.3, +.5, +.7, whatever intervals your camera allows.

2. The old rule of shooting at "the inverse of the tele length" is absolute bunk. It is GUARANTEED to give you unsharp photos.Pro sports photographers have a different rule: as fast as the camera will allow. In other words, DON'T shoot at 1/250 with a 200mm lens. Unsharp images are guaranteed. Instead, choose at least 1/500, and much preferably, 1/1000 or higher. It makes a huge difference. Motion-reduction systems are NOT all they're cracked up to be, as noted above.

3. I respect the advice to shoot with a fast 50mm, 85mm, or 105mm lens. But at a running event you'll be MUCH happier with a zoom. Preferably, two zooms (of course, it's not always practical, due to $$). Pros very often carry two camera bodies, one with a 24-70/2.8 and the other with an 80-200/2.8 or 70-200/2.8. These lenses are VERY expensive, but you can rent them for $25-$35 for a weekend. If on a budget and you're shooting DX, the Nikon 18-55 and 55-200 will do just fine. If you have a single camera body, plan on using the 18-55 most of the time - you'll find that it just works out that way.

4. In management circles, there's an approach called MBWA - managing by walking around. The best managers know what's happening on the shop floor. Similarly, in the U.S. Army Special Forces, including Delta, the rule is "boots on the ground." Instead of confidently flying helicopters into battle and getting their arses handed to them, the Delta teams will spend weeks on the ground, covertly getting the lay of the land, meeting the locals, planning strategy. Similarly, as a running photographer there is NO substitute for getting there (very) early, walking the course with intense concentration, watching for shooting angles, backdrops, and evaluating where the sun is likely to be. It's a huge advantage if you will do this. I was a Runner's World staff photographer, and I would get to races 90 minutes or 2 hours early, and it always paid off. Also, the exercise of walking the course will help loosen up your thinking and put you in a better mood for shooting.

5. Finally, start your planning even farther ahead. Decide: what kinds of photos are you after? Tight closeups of the elite runners? Photos that show good coaching and positive sports cultures? Photos of kids having fun? Photos of a specific team? Plan accordingly.

6. Okay, here's a bonus tip. Get yourself out of the picture. Really, if you can get very solid and grounded and centered before you start shooting, and focused on the job and not your place in the scene, you'll take better pictures.

7. One more: great photos are not taken by great cameras or even by great photographers. They're taken by great hearts. Whatever your style - whatever drives you - humor, beauty, passion for sports, admiration for training and effort - get yourself completely into it, and then let it go and submerge your ego in the task at hand. Whenever I succeeded in doing that, I sold tons more photos because they had passion in them - not emotion but a deep, solid, controlled appreciation and calm good feeling.

goodguy · Sep 26, 2014

I would consider Nikon D5200 with Nikon 85mm 1.8G, its a very good moderate zoom lens, I used it once in a dog show at F1.8 when I needed high shutter speed to freeze the fast running dogs, the results I got were amazing, with the D5200 24MP sensor yuo will have a lot of place to crop if needed the runners.
I think if you buy a used D5200 and used 85mm 1.8G you will be less then 1000$
For crop sensor camera the D5200 is a great tool and its AF system is pretty good with its 39 AF points.

xzyragon · Sep 26, 2014

goodguy said:
I would consider Nikon D5200 with Nikon 85mm 1.8G, its a very good moderate zoom lens, I used it once in a dog show at F1.8 when I needed high shutter speed to freeze the fast running dogs, the results I got were amazing, with the D5200 24MP sensor yuo will have a lot of place to crop if needed the runners.
I think if you buy a used D5200 and used 85mm 1.8G you will be less then 1000$
For crop sensor camera the D5200 is a great tool and its AF system is pretty good with its 39 AF points.

O a 7d + 50mm 1.8 for < $900 refurbed. 8 fps + a fast lens.

goodguy · Sep 26, 2014

xzyragon said:
goodguy said:

I would consider Nikon D5200 with Nikon 85mm 1.8G, its a very good moderate zoom lens, I used it once in a dog show at F1.8 when I needed high shutter speed to freeze the fast running dogs, the results I got were amazing, with the D5200 24MP sensor yuo will have a lot of place to crop if needed the runners.
I think if you buy a used D5200 and used 85mm 1.8G you will be less then 1000$
For crop sensor camera the D5200 is a great tool and its AF system is pretty good with its 39 AF points.

Click to expand...

O a 7d + 50mm 1.8 for < $900 refurbed. 8 fps + a fast lens.

7D is a good option too but I am not sure if the 50mm lens isnt too wide and he will need the 85mm to get closer to the runners.