Best entry level dslr for sports....

[robbins.photo]

Sony's have built in AF motors.

Yes, they do. They also have a limited selection of lenses available which is why many people will use lenses with other mounts with an adapter.

While this is functional it does require manual focus, all of which was mentioned in the previous post.

That's why I recommend that the op take a look at what types of lenses are available for the sony and see if that will suit there needs first before just running out and buying one.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

 

[ConradM]

Sony's have built in AF motors.

Yes, they do. They also have a limited selection of lenses available which is why many people will use lenses with other mounts with an adapter.

While this is functional it does require manual focus, all of which was mentioned in the previous post.

That's why I recommend that the op take a look at what types of lenses are available for the sony and see if that will suit there needs first before just running out and buying one.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

The 120 or so lenses available for someone looking for an entry level camera should be more than enough. That's kind of non-issue. Sorry I didn't think that's what you meant.

 

[BGeise]

Definitely get the a65. Although the 24 mp sensor isn't as bad in low light as people think. It was much worse on the first gen Alphas. What's your budget? Could you swing for the a77 or a6000?

I agree with Conrad. My A77 only starts to show noise around 1600 iso. So if you are planning on shooting games in super low light you might have some noise but i think you would get that with any entry level. The A77 mk2 is supposed to have even better low light shooting at high iso and they are increasing the buffer. So at 12fps you should be able to get some great shots. Only down side to the mk2 is the price.

 

[ConradM]

The a77 mk2 is actually on par with other bodies sharing the same sensor now as far as low light. So they found a way to compensate for the light lost through the mirror.

 

[ConradM]

Something else to consider if you're going to be out shooting dirtbikes... The a77 is weather/dust sealed. Just a little more peace of mind.

 

[robbins.photo]

Sony's have built in AF motors.

Yes, they do. They also have a limited selection of lenses available which is why many people will use lenses with other mounts with an adapter.

While this is functional it does require manual focus, all of which was mentioned in the previous post.

That's why I recommend that the op take a look at what types of lenses are available for the sony and see if that will suit there needs first before just running out and buying one.

Sent from my LG-LG730 using Tapatalk

The 120 or so lenses available for someone looking for an entry level camera should be more than enough. That's kind of non-issue. Sorry I didn't think that's what you meant.

Well for you it might be a non-issue, for the OP? Well depending on their needs it might be an issue, which is why I mention it and encourage them to research it for themselves. Much like my own D5200 - the fact that it shoots slower, 5 FPS, and can only do so for a limited number of frames in RAW really isn't much of an issue for me. I can shoot motorcross with it just fine.

But for someone else, depending on their shooting style and preference, they might find the 5 FPS too limiting and it might be an issue. For me and the kinds of shooting situations I'm in the better lowlight performance of the Nikon D5200 and the additional choices I have in lenses makes it a better option than the Sony. However just because the 5200 is best suited to my individual needs, it doesn't automatically follow that it's the best camera selection for everyone. What is an issue or not an issue for me doesn't necessarily mean that it might be an issue/non-issue for someone else. Something I try to keep in mind when making camera recommendations. I try to give them both the positive and negative that seems to apply most to what they have stated their needs are, and then let them do their own research and decide from there what camera will suit their needs best.

You might also wish to go back and read the original posting, because I'm really getting the impresison here you skimmed it rather than actually reading it fully. You'll note that I recommended the Sony over Nikon/Canon for the type of shooting situation the OP mentioned she'd be using it in most. I was merely trying to give them all the facts so they could make an informed choice.

 

[JustJazzie]

Would the canon l1 suffice? It's supposed to be the smallest dslr out there, and I find that I just don't take big cameras with me....

Definitely get the a65. Although the 24 mp sensor isn't as bad in low light as people think. It was much worse on the first gen Alphas. What's your budget? Could you swing for the a77 or a6000?

I don't have a budget exactly. I just realized I needed a new set up. I'll save up for what I need- but I'm not interested in a huge heavy dslr like a 5dmkiii or anything.

What is your current setup?

I have a sony nex7 that I ADORE. I'm a petite girl with tiny hands. (Size 3 wedding ring) So I have fallen in love with mirror less and I really hate the thought of going back to a dslr.

I only suggest this because you say entry level so I assume you are budget limited, you could pick up a used Canon 1d mark 2/2N for very small money. Put a reasonable zroom such as a Tamron 70-300mm vc and you have an 8fps older gen sports camera. It's native ISO is limited to 1600 though

I'm on a budget- mostly because I don't want to invest a ton into a dslr. As soon as they come out with a sports capable mirror less camera I will be ditching the dslr!

Something else to consider if you're going to be out shooting dirtbikes... The a77 is weather/dust sealed. Just a little more peace of mind.

I hadn't thought about weather sealing! This is definitely something to consider. Thanks for bringing it up!

 

[TheLost]

I've been shooting my kids doing sports for the past 15 years. I've gone from kindergarten T-Ball & Soccer up through High School Football, Rugby, Basketball & Water Polo.

My advice to you is this: Don't let your gear get in the way.

Sure, A great body with high FPS and pro-level Auto focus is ideal.. And who doesn't want a 70-200 f/2.8 with blazing fast focus motors and chart-topping sharpness? But not everybody can afford that.

My advice would be:
1) Pick your system based on what other people use. Right now... that's Canon and Nikon. I'm not bashing Sony, its a great system. However, You'll never see any professional sports shooter using anything but the big 2 (see #2). Sports 'level' equipment is expensive!!! You'll have a better chance buying good quality used Nikon & Canon gear. There is just more of it floating around.

2) Study pictures other people have taken. What gear are they using? What where the camera settings? How did they setup the shot? There are 1000's of blog posts talking about shooting sports with Nikon and Canon gear. 1000's of reviews of lenses used for shooting sports. Start googling!

3) Learn the sport. If you know whats going to happen you'll know where to be. I've seen amazing pictures taken from entry-level gear because the person taking the picture knew where to be.

4) Shoot Raw. JPG's are great for Sports Illustrated but RAW lets you get the most out of your gear. Shooting RAW lets you bump up those shadows to see inside the helmets. It lets you get more from your camera.

5) Practice, Practice, Practice.

To answer your question on gear...
The ideal setup would be a 'high end' crop sensor body (Nikon D7100, Canon 70D) and a 70-200 f/2.8. The crop sensor gives you more 'reach' then full frame.. for example: Nikon 300 f/2.8 = $5.7k.. A 70-200 f/2.8 Nikon on a crop body gives you the same field of view (200mm x 1.5= 300mm) for $2k).

It really just depends on what your budget is..

Some examples on how you can bring out faces from the shadows when you shoot raw.. Most of these pictures where taken and noon (full sun).

 

[ConradM]

Would the canon l1 suffice? It's supposed to be the smallest dslr out there, and I find that I just don't take big cameras with me....

Definitely get the a65. Although the 24 mp sensor isn't as bad in low light as people think. It was much worse on the first gen Alphas. What's your budget? Could you swing for the a77 or a6000?

I don't have a budget exactly. I just realized I needed a new set up. I'll save up for what I need- but I'm not interested in a huge heavy dslr like a 5dmkiii or anything.

What is your current setup?

I have a sony nex7 that I ADORE. I'm a petite girl with tiny hands. (Size 3 wedding ring) So I have fallen in love with mirror less and I really hate the thought of going back to a dslr.

I only suggest this because you say entry level so I assume you are budget limited, you could pick up a used Canon 1d mark 2/2N for very small money. Put a reasonable zroom such as a Tamron 70-300mm vc and you have an 8fps older gen sports camera. It's native ISO is limited to 1600 though

I'm on a budget- mostly because I don't want to invest a ton into a dslr. As soon as they come out with a sports capable mirror less camera I will be ditching the dslr!

Something else to consider if you're going to be out shooting dirtbikes... The a77 is weather/dust sealed. Just a little more peace of mind.

I hadn't thought about weather sealing! This is definitely something to consider. Thanks for bringing it up!

Sounds like the a6000 is right up your alley. Fastest AF on any system DSLR or not.

The A6000 provides a significant increase in the AF coverage on the sensor for both contrast-detect and phase-detect AF compared to the NEX-6. Now, AF coverage spans approximately 91% of the height and 92% of the width of the sensor (up from 47% x 52% on the NEX-6). The sensor is nearly covered by AF points: there are now 179 phase-detect AF points within that coverage area as well as 25 contrast-detect points.

 

[JustJazzie]

Thelost: I'm heavily considering sony because with an adapter I could put my lens's onto my nex and keep autofocus. Id be completely happy with 1 AF point that WORKED.

I'm already shooting in raw- it sounds like I just need to improve my photoshopping skills for that one.

I was looking at the a6000, but there just isn't enough info on it's AF performance for sports. My nex did fine for focusing from a side view, but the shots that I'm upset it mises were when the bike was coming AT me. When I can see their faces. I've seen the a6000 track side to side- but what about coming at you?...

 

[gsgary]

Thelost: I'm heavily considering sony because with an adapter I could put my lens's onto my nex and keep autofocus. Id be completely happy with 1 AF point that WORKED.

I'm already shooting in raw- it sounds like I just need to improve my photoshopping skills for that one.

I was looking at the a6000, but there just isn't enough info on it's AF performance for sports. My nex did fine for focusing from a side view, but the shots that I'm upset it mises were when the bike was coming AT me. When I can see their faces. I've seen the a6000 track side to side- but what about coming at you?...

Use what you have got and pre focus on a point and turn auto focus off any camera can shoot sports with the right techniques

 

[TheLost]

I wasn't going to jump into the 'Sony vs. world' war here... but i'm going to have to call you out on this one.

Sounds like the a6000 is right up your alley. Fastest AF on any system DSLR or not.

The A6000 provides a significant increase in the AF coverage on the sensor for both contrast-detect and phase-detect AF compared to the NEX-6. Now, AF coverage spans approximately 91% of the height and 92% of the width of the sensor (up from 47% x 52% on the NEX-6). The sensor is nearly covered by AF points: there are now 179 phase-detect AF points within that coverage area as well as 25 contrast-detect points.

Here is what Sony says in the fine print for the A6000 in regards to its AF speed (notice its a tiny little footnote)
"1.Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014. Determined with internal measurement method with E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS lens mounted, Pre-AF off and viewfinder in use"

Let me un-sony speak that footnote for you.. "Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C", they say this because the Nikon 1 does not use an APS-C sized sensor. The Nikon 1 system has a better AF system then the A6000.

And your use of words "Fastest AF on any system DSLR or not." is completely false. A mid level DSLR will still auto focus better and faster then the A6000. Dollar for Dollar.. a Nikon D7000 (~$600) will handle action better then a A6000.

Don't let your fanboy-ism get in the way of reality.

 

[JustJazzie]

Trust me! I have been heavily researching the a6000 trying to convince myself it would fit my needs. It's just not there yet. But it's also the reason I don't want to invest much in a dslr! I'm hoping it will be there soon!!

 

[ConradM]

I wasn't going to jump into the 'Sony vs. world' war here... but i'm going to have to call you out on this one.

Sounds like the a6000 is right up your alley. Fastest AF on any system DSLR or not.

The A6000 provides a significant increase in the AF coverage on the sensor for both contrast-detect and phase-detect AF compared to the NEX-6. Now, AF coverage spans approximately 91% of the height and 92% of the width of the sensor (up from 47% x 52% on the NEX-6). The sensor is nearly covered by AF points: there are now 179 phase-detect AF points within that coverage area as well as 25 contrast-detect points.

Here is what Sony says in the fine print for the A6000 in regards to its AF speed (notice its a tiny little footnote)
"1.Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C image sensor as of February 12, 2014. Determined with internal measurement method with E PZ 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OSS lens mounted, Pre-AF off and viewfinder in use"

Let me un-sony speak that footnote for you.. "Amongst interchangeable-lens digital cameras equipped with an APS-C", they say this because the Nikon 1 does not use an APS-C sized sensor. The Nikon 1 system has a better AF system then the A6000.

And your use of words "Fastest AF on any system DSLR or not." is completely false. A mid level DSLR will still auto focus better and faster then the A6000. Dollar for Dollar.. a Nikon D7000 (~$600) will handle action better then a A6000.

Don't let your fanboy-ism get in the way of reality.

Well I didn't really see it as a war but ok. Faster than any system is a stretch. I should have used the APS-C verbage. What makes you say a D7000 would handle action better? 5 fps? No thanks...

In general, traditional entry and mid level DSLR's have been behind the curve compared to Sony Alphas when it comes to AF-C. Now this technology is trickling down to the mirrorless cameras.

 

[TheLost]

Trust me! I have been heavily researching the a6000 trying to convince myself it would fit my needs. It's just not there yet. But it's also the reason I don't want to invest much in a dslr! I'm hoping it will be there soon!!

The trick is to balance your wants and needs...

I hate lugging around my DSLR but i shoot 90% sports, 5% animals (wildlife / pets) and 5% landscapes so for me a DSLR is the best choice. If i shot something like 25% sports and 75% other crap i'd have myself a nice mirrorless setup