Which camera for sports-daytime and low light??

[usayit]

Most of my shooting is during the day anyway. What does that mean when you say that the 28-135 is "long on a crop body"?

Many cameras have are equipped with sensors that are smaller than the original dimensions of the 35mm frame. Typically the "crop" factor is 1.5 (some are 1.3x, 2x, 1.6x). This means that 28mm focal length produces a effective field of view equivalent to a 42mm lens. In essence, you loose the "wide" angle view that the 28-135mm lens used to produce on a traditional film camera. On the other hand, many sports photographers saw this as an easy way to get longer reach from their longer focal length lenses... an advantage.

It is a matter of personal choice.... as well. Many companies address this issue by selling lenses designed for the smaller sensor with focal lengths that are significantly wider. For Canon, the EF-S line of lenses are for this purpose. For example, the 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S lens is to the 50D what the 24-70mm f/2.8L is to the full frame 5D camera body which is equipped with a sensor about the size of a traditional 35mm negative frame.

 

[flmomx5]

Thank you, that makes sense. SO in comparing the 50D to the Nikon D90 that has a 1.5 crop factor and a 18-105 lens, that would produce a field of view approximately 27mm lens equivalent, right? Would that make the Nikon D90 better for everyday use?

 

[Derrel]

Soccer is a field sport, and as such, action can be very far away, especially if tou are in the stands and the stands are at a common high school three-use field with a track, a football field, and a soccer pitch, all combined...the stands can add 40 yards distance to the action.

One approach is to gain sideline access, but then again, that's not a complete answer. Soccer is one of the fastest-moving sports. The ball can be kicked 50-60 yards and moves with amazing speed on long passes, so one second the action is right in front of you,and the next, wayyyyyy down at the other end.

A lot of people like a long zoom lens, like a Canon 100-400, Nikon 80-400, Sigma 100-300, Tamron 200-500, or Sigma 50-500 or Sigma 150-500 for covering daytime soccer, from a distance. One option is to shoot from afar, and crop-in at the computer to get a closer, better-looking image. These lenses are not cheap. And they are not suitable for low-light, artificial light soccer.

You might have to resign yourself to shooting only the closer action, when your kids are reasonably near to the camera, and going with one of the more-affordable lenses like a 70-300mm f/4~5.6 variable maximum aperture zoom lens in the $199 to $500 price range. The Nikon D90 and the EOS 50D you have mentioned are fairly close competitors with similar AF systems. In terms of an affordable,good lens for daytime soccer, there are all the choices listed above, plus a few others.

If you want to get into low-light sports, affordably, the lowest cost is to buy a used prime lens of good quality, and either get close, or shoot from a bit father back,and crop. I am speaking of 85mm 1.8 lenses, something like that, a medium length, high-speed (ie wide f/stop like f/1.8 that allows a lot of light to enter). There just are not that many lenses suitable for low-light (ie nightime,stadium lights) soccer in the under $1,000 price range. IF the matches are in the daytime, you can shoot a lot of rigs and do good work...but at night, it becomes more difficult to get "good" shots. But then again, how good do they have to be??? I think a lot of experienced shooters tend to over-estimate how "good" a shot of one's own kid needs to be to get enjoyment out of the photo, you know??? If you can get close, pick your moments, and not expect to be able to cover the entire soccer pitch form point A to point B from one camera position, this whole issue becomes a lot easier for you; with patience and from close range, you could get good shots with a d-slr and a 50mm 1.8 lens. Maybe only three or fur per game, but they'd be clear and crisp, day or night, on close -range action.

 

[usayit]

Thank you, that makes sense. SO in comparing the 50D to the Nikon D90 that has a 1.5 crop factor and a 18-105 lens, that would produce a field of view approximately 27mm lens equivalent, right? Would that make the Nikon D90 better for everyday use?

yes.. 18mm equates to about 27mm FOV on cropped sensors.

If equipped with the proper lens that fits your needs, either would make sense for everyday use. There are good Canon lenses that are equivalent to the nikkor 18-105mm.

Personally, I'm not a big fan of zooms with wide focal ranges.. its a compromise on all aspects.

 

[Clintopher]

Another thing to consider...a Canon system will cost considerably less than a comparable Nikon system. I just bought my first DSLR, a Nikon D90, and the other camera I was looking at was the Canon 50D. I couldn't find anyplace locally that had a 50D and I liked the ergonomics of the D90, plus I'd read that the low light performance of the 50D left things to be desired so I bought the D90. Now that I'm on the hunt for a few more lenses I'm wishing I'd have made more of an effort to find a 50D to hold, and done a little more research about the 50D low light capabilities before I made the buying decision.

Having said that, I'm not displeased with the D90. I like it quite a lot, it's just going to cost me more than I'd originally planned by the time it's all said and done.

 

[flmomx5]

THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! Those were the answers I was looking for!! My kids are little and play on youth fields. I sit right on the sidelines, so I don't need an incredible zoom lens, at least for now. That's why I wanted to get the camera and lenses that I need to get me by for now, and then expand with lenses as they get older (and I save $$$). I now know what I ultimately will need. Now if I can only figure out what would be best to get me started!

 

[KmH]

I have made daytime soccer images in the past with a Nikon AF-S 70-300mm, mostly shooting from the end lines. You can get decent subject scale from just the other side of midfield. You have to crop a fair amount though if you make images beyond there to the opposite end line. And at 70 mm you can still shoot most of the close in action, particularly if you can back up some.

I got a lens with longer reach (Sigma 150-500mm, $999 new) so I could cover end line to end line. However that then makes it hard to shoot the closer in action. So, I keep a second camera body handy with either a 24-85 mm lens or a 55-200 mm lens.

If you look closely, most sports shooters use 2 cameras.

If you were to be interested in a Nikon 70-300 I happen to have one for sell in the Buy/Sell forum. If nothing else I have pictures of the lens:

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/buy-sell/195508-fs-nikon-70-300-vr.html

I shoot both youth and adult soccer with the 150-500.

 

[sanjeed1407]

In fact any camera is ok for any type of photography.

However, some cameras are aimed at serving some special purposes better. For example, EOS 1D Mark IV is Canon's top pro action camera. But one can nicely use it for indoor portrait or landscape photography as well if desired. Likewise an entry level EOS 450D with consumer lenses can shoot action pictures that are very much presentable.

The universal truth is; it's the photographer that takes good pictures - not the camera.

 

[cfusionpm]

I shoot with a 50D and have the 70-300mm IS lens, which would be a great combo so long as there is good daylight. It gets a bit hairy in low light with that lens, but any camera would. Without an expensive f/2.8 or faster telephoto, any low light shots are going to be tough.

If you do plan on the 50D, skip on the packaged 24-135 lens kit, as its not a very good lens. I would recommend to pick up the body only with the 70-300 IS lens. Right now, Canon has a combo deal on this exact configuration; taking $250 off package.

You're really going to like the fast burst mode too; it can take shots as fast as 6.3 frames per second, which is about 2 frames a second faster than the D90.

 

[sanjeed1407]

I shoot with a 50D and have the 70-300mm IS lens, which would be a great combo so long as there is good daylight. It gets a bit hairy in low light with that lens, but any camera would. Without an expensive f/2.8 or faster telephoto, any low light shots are going to be tough.

If you do plan on the 50D, skip on the packaged 24-135 lens kit, as its not a very good lens. I would recommend to pick up the body only with the 70-300 IS lens. Right now, Canon has a combo deal on this exact configuration; taking $250 off package.

You're really going to like the fast burst mode too; it can take shots as fast as 6.3 frames per second, which is about 2 frames a second faster than the D90.

Do you get the same fps when you shoot in RAW? And how's the buffer?

Is an upgrade to 50D from 450D worthwhile? Or may be it's better to wait for the rumored 60D?

Thanks in advance.

 

[inTempus]

Advice please!!! Ok, I need a camera and lens to take action shots (my kids playing soccer) in both daytime and low light situations as well as everyday indoor shots. I'm upgrading to a DSLR, starting from scratch. The salesman at Best Buy told me the Canon 50D would be best for me, and that was the camera I liked the most and felt comfortable in my hands. It came with the standard 28-135 lens. However, I recently spoke with a sports photographer who told me that the Canon 50D wouldn't be able to give me the low light shots I was looking for. He recommended buying a used/refurbed Nikon D300 along with a Nikon ED AF-S VR Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 lens and a Nikon SB-800 flash. I'm not a professional, nor do I plan to be, at least not yet and don't have a huge budget, but I do want to get what will work best for me. Can anyone offer me advice on what I should do?? I would really appreciate it.

If you're looking to buy new, consider the Canon 7D. It has better low light performance than the D300 (D300S even) and it has probably the most advanced AF system in a prosumer model, of course opinions vary. But it can shoot up to 8fps, has a watered down 1D4 AF system (making it quite good) and the high ISO performance tops the D300 all while offering you 18MP vs. 12MP of the Nikon offering.

But, with that being said, the D300 is a great body too. You would be happy with either. But if I were shooting sports I would go with either the 7D or the D300 over lower end bodies... assuming cost isn't an issue.

 

[sanjeed1407]

At pbase; 50D sample images look cleaner and less noisy than those of 7D. Had more MPs produced better IQ; all the manufacturers would have gone for that. However, simple math says, bigger pixels = cleaner images and less noise. What Canon claims with 7D are not entirely true.

Performance wise EOS 50D seems good choice for action/wildlife photography. Or else, if you have budget; go for either Canon EOS 1D Mark IV or Nikon D3s.

 

[inTempus]

At pbase; 50D sample images look cleaner and less noisy than those of 7D. Had more MPs produced better IQ; all the manufacturers would have gone for that. However, simple math says, bigger pixels = cleaner images and less noise. What Canon claims with 7D are not entirely true.

Performance wise EOS 50D seems good choice for action/wildlife photography. Or else, if you have budget; go for either Canon EOS 1D Mark IV or Nikon D3s.

I remember when the 50D came out and I bought one, everyone talked about how bad the high ISO performance was and how it was a step backwards from the 40D which it replaced. For the longest time 40D's out sold 50D's and many folks simply refused to give them a chance.

Now here we sit having the same asinine conversation about the 50D vs. the 7D.

Canon EOS 7D review: High ISO JPEG Noise results, Canon 7D vs 50D vs 5D Mark II vs Nikon D300s | Cameralabs

The 50D and 7D actually perform quite similarly. Where the 7D shines is in AF performance, something pretty important to action/sports. The 7D also has superior metering (color vs. B&W), a digital level for landscapes, customizable LCD overlay in the view finder and it's considerably faster. It also shoots HD video and has a commander mode for flashes. In short, it blows the 50D out of the water in a number of key areas and matches it in IQ if you shoot RAW.

If I were only shooting portraits, I would consider the 50D. Again, it's one of my favorite bodies. But if my goal is to arm myself properly for action and sports, the 7D is clearly the superior choice for the FAR more advanced AF system.

The 7D rivals the AF performance of the 1D4 yet costs $1700 vs. $5000. There is a reason the 7D sits between the 50D and 1D4 in the product line. I don't know what you have against the 7D but it's kind of silly to say either buy a 50D just just buy a $5k 1D4 passing by the 7D entirely.

 

[sanjeed1407]

7D's admirers and buyers were victims of the hype created by immense publicity wherein Canon is 200% successful. Had I been a pro wildlife shooter; I would maintain both 1DMIV and Nikon D3s in my arsenal with compatible lenses.

For an enthusiast, 50D serves the purpose fairly well producing cleaner images with vibrant colors. As a hobbyist nature shooter (incl wildlife), I planned and budgeted for a 5DMII for upgrading from 450D – mainly because I want clean images with nice colors. But as it doesn't offer good burst rate and produces less reach for long teles due to being full frame; I'm leaning towards 50D. Had 40D been in full production now that would definitely have been my first choice. Nothing personal against 7D however, it lost its appeal to me due to crappy IQ.

 

[Hardrock]

If your budget is your main concern, which it is for most people. Than I would realy consider buying a used 40D and 3rd party 70-200f2.8. You could probally get both of them for around $1500 and have a great combo to start building with. The 40D and 50D are very very similar you cant go wrong with either. As far as Nikon goes the only thing I really know about them is the glass is usually more expensive and I really wish Canon would make a 200-400 f4 lens like the nikon version.

Canon 40d [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-40D-10-1MP-Digital-Body/dp/B000V5P90K"]Amazon.com: Canon EOS 40D 10.1MP Digital SLR Camera: Camera & Photo[/ame]

sigma 70-200 f2.8 [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-70-200mm-Macro-Digital-Cameras/dp/B001046ES2"]Amazon.com: Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG HSM II Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Camera & Photo[/ame]