Best entry level dslr for sports....

[JustJazzie]

Well, my macro dreams may need to be placed on hold for a sports setup. I did a search, but couldn't find a thread that discussed this specifically. What entry level dslr would work best for action/sports/wildlife. I see the sony a65 has the most cross points for AF and the most fps. What else should I be taking into account? And I think I'd need a 55-300 correct?

 

[pixmedic]

which system are you looking at?
for Nikon on a budget, i would get the 70-300 VRII lens over the 55-300.

 

[robbins.photo]

Sports is a pretty big category. If your talking outdoors in good sunlight then any decent telephoto lens should suffice. If your talking indoors or outdoors evening/nighttime then your going to need fast glass, F/2.8 - and anything in that range in telephoto is expensive.

For outdoors in good lighting Sony would make a good choice I would think. They have a high frame per second speed which would be nice to have in a situation like that, however the thing to keep in mind is that Sony acheives such high FPS by using translucent mirror technology. The upside is that you get very fast shooting, the downside is that because of the way the system works you have to divert some of the incoming light away from the sensor and as a result your low light performance will not match an older DSLR with the flip mirror setup that uses the same or similar sensor. So if at some point your considering shooting indoors or night games/events then Sony may not be the best option. The second drawback to Sony is that you will have more limited choices of lenses that will use autofocus and won't require an adapter of some sort, so be aware of that limitation before you purchase.

If your going to be doing indoor/night games/events then it would be tossup between Canon or Nikon. Canon would give you better shooting speed for longer bursts but wouldn't perform as well in lowlight until you get into full frame. Nkon would give you better lowlight performance but wouldn't have as big a buffer so unless you shoot jpg and use a very fast SD card you would have to get more adept at predicting the action and shooting judiciously rather than trying to "spray and pray". So really it comes down to more which advantages you think would work best for your particular shooting style at that stage. Me I prefer the better lowlight and so I went Nikon, but a lot of guys go Canon instead and I don't blame them. The increased buffer size would be a nice edge to have.

Hope that helps.

 

[Derrel]

Nikon's faster-focusing "affordable" lens is the 70-300 AF-S VR-G; I've shot a number of youth soccer games with it, and a lot of portrait sessions and general knockaround day-trip stuff...that would be the lens. Buy the lens USED, and the price is $300 or so; new, it's still wayyyy over-priced. There are a LOT of them used, now that Nikon has a new 70-200 f/4 AF-S VR-G and a new 80-400 VR and the new 55-300 on the market.

Not sure about the best entry-level d-slr for sports...D5200 is on markdown a lot of places. Last-gen D7000 might be a decent value. You might also be able to buy something used for a good price.

 

[JustJazzie]

Sorry for not clarifying. My kids are getting into dirt biking, so plenty of light as far as I think? I don't know too much about it. And then we get tons of pretty birds here in our mountains, so some outdoor shots in decent lighting....

 

[ronlane]

On the Canon side, you could go with a used 7D and a used 70-200mm f/4L. That's looking at about $1,500 but assuming that you don't do a bunch of really low light sports. A used 1.4x TC is under $300 and would help with motocross and bird photos.

The 7D may come down some more in the next few months, as they are saying that the 7D mk ii is going to be used at the World Cup this year, so it is coming.

 

[JustJazzie]

One issue besides focus I am having is how dark the kids faces are in their helmets vs the well lit everything else. So I need good dynamic range to overcome that correct?

 

[manicmike]

I'd go with the 70-300vr or 80-200 2.8D and a D7000/D90. Just my opinion. I assume you're just talking about kids sports or similar.

 

[robbins.photo]

One issue besides focus I am having is how dark the kids faces are in their helmets vs the well lit everything else. So I need good dynamic range to overcome that correct?

Good dynamic range helps - but .. well, ok, don't freak out but believe it or not I run into this same issue with Gorilla portraits. Lol

Gorilla's have a very heavy and pronounced brow and as a result in photographs their eyes are generally heavily shadowed. One of the techniques I use to compensate for this is to take the picture into photoshop, I'll select the area around the eyes and copy and paste this area into a new layer. Then I will use photoshop's highlight/shadow feature to reduce the shadows, I'll erase whatever portions of the new layer I need to so that it blends in properly with the layer below, then I'll flatten the layers and viola - I get recognizable eyes and detail where before it was too heavily shadowed to really reveal much of anything.

 

[gsgary]

Sports photography and budget should never be in the same sentence

 

[robbins.photo]

Sports photography and budget should never be in the same sentence

Better that than the words "chain saw" and "whoopsie".

 

[ConradM]

Sports is a pretty big category. If your talking outdoors in good sunlight then any decent telephoto lens should suffice. If your talking indoors or outdoors evening/nighttime then your going to need fast glass, F/2.8 - and anything in that range in telephoto is expensive.

For outdoors in good lighting Sony would make a good choice I would think. They have a high frame per second speed which would be nice to have in a situation like that, however the thing to keep in mind is that Sony acheives such high FPS by using translucent mirror technology. The upside is that you get very fast shooting, the downside is that because of the way the system works you have to divert some of the incoming light away from the sensor and as a result your low light performance will not match an older DSLR with the flip mirror setup that uses the same or similar sensor. So if at some point your considering shooting indoors or night games/events then Sony may not be the best option. The second drawback to Sony is that you will have more limited choices of lenses that will use autofocus and won't require an adapter of some sort, so be aware of that limitation before you purchase.

Sony's have built in AF motors.

 

[ConradM]

Sorry for not clarifying. My kids are getting into dirt biking, so plenty of light as far as I think? I don't know too much about it. And then we get tons of pretty birds here in our mountains, so some outdoor shots in decent lighting....

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?

 

[Dao]

What is your current setup?

 

[jaomul]

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