Best sports photography cameras?

[Derrel]

I get the feeling that we are talking about a high school/prep school student who is interested in shooting some sports stuff...and NOT submitting these shots to The Sporting News nor to Sports Illustrated....but more like shooting for the school's yearbook, or the on-line or printed student newspaper, or for the school's website. Does the OP really, truly need a top-flight "pro sports shooter" setup? I think not. Would it be nice? Sure! Buit there's a LOT that the shooter can do to tilt the odds in his or her favor.

There's no need for ISO 16,000, nor a real, true, pressing need for full-frame, etc.. PLENTY of cameras have been used over the last 40,50,60 years, with Tri-X 400 B&W film pushed to E.I. 1,600, and indoors shots made at f/2.8 at 1/500 second or thereabouts...if EVEN that! Outdoors, in daylight, plenty of times it;'s easy to get to 1/1250 to 1/1500 seconds at moderate ISO levels. In BRIGHT, sunny conditions, even a cheap 70-300 f/4.5~5.6 zoom lens can handle soccer, rugby, football,track and field, and so on.

Plenty of cameras can cut the mustard. It's not necessary to have a full-frame sensor. A 50mm f/1.8 lens can capture many good sports photos in track and field, wrestling, basketball, tennis, and so on. Not all sports are shot in dismal lighting; much H.S. sports stuff is played in the afternoon. Lacrosse, soccer, field hockey, etc., typically afternoon lighting.

Seriously...I think this has been way,way overblown, and the OP's situation totally ignored. We're talking abouyt a high school student here--not some stringer for the Associated Press covering night football exclusively.

 

[pixmedic]

I was genuinely curious. never shot sports, film or digital.
I did shoot a bit of film when i was younger (no other option at the time...you know...'cause im old)
but I shot either my pentax 110 super, or medium format. (Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya 645)

 

[Derrel]

It's true: 35mm FILM SLR cameras had a large, high-contrast viewfinder image, due to the way the viewfinder screens were ground; coarse grind leading to high levels of scatter, which made them EASY to focus by hand-and-eye. Also, manual focusing lenses of all types, were designed to focus by hand-and-eye, with smooth focusing systems, and fairly lengthy travel of the focusing ring, compared with AF lenses, which have shoirt throws, and sloppy, loosey-goosey focusing in many types of lenses.

Looking through my sports camera/photojournalism camera from my college days, the Nikon F3HP, the high eyepoint finder looks SUPER-HUGE compared with the viewfinder image from a low-cost APS-C camera...the finder image was BIG, was made by a high-grade pentaprism, not a cheappenta-mirror, and was easy to see...and with some lenses, manual focusing was pretty fast, pretty easy, because, well...those systems had been developed since the early 1960's, and by the 1980's, they had been refined well. Coarse microprism doughnot and split-image focusing aid was easy to see and use; Nikon's gridded E-screen was also very easy to use.

We shot Tri-X pushed to 1,600 or 3,200 in MacArthur Court, and had almost zero shadow detail, just basically highlights. Night football at many high school fields looked like cr**. Today, lights are better at many stadiums. Digital sensors are wayyyyyyyyy better now than 2- and 3-stop pushed B&W film. High-speed Color in the 1980's was mostly Scotch 640-Tungsten. In 1985 or 1986, Fuji introduced Fujicolor 1600 color print film: HUGE grain, and rather low color saturation. I personally liked its pastel look and big grain; the crappiest $349 Nikon D3300 body does better.

A d-slr of 2015-2017 and a 50mm,85mm,or whatever prime lens (105,135,180,200,300) is a vastly better technical camera than film cameras of the 1980's and 1990's were.

Offer me a Nikon F3HP and Motor Drive 4 and my old kit of seven manual focus prime lenses, or a Nikon D3300 and a modern 70-200/2.8 and I will go with the cheapest Nikon d-slr over the best film camera and lenses of the early- to mid-1980's. Modern AF-S focusing lenses from Nikon allow even beginners to do decent AF tracking with some reading of the manual, and basic point-and-fire or One-Shot focus acquisition is surprisingly good with most modern d-slr cameras, even the cheap ones.

 

[table1349]

I was genuinely curious. never shot sports, film or digital.
I did shoot a bit of film when i was younger (no other option at the time...you know...'cause im old)
but I shot either my pentax 110 super, or medium format. (Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya 645)

The other side of the equation that doesn't get mentioned is expectations. In 1972 the trend in lighting was flat, which in todays terms would be boring. Times change. DOF was usually not as deep and as Derrel mentioned we would push the film. Times change. Printing techniques were vastly different back then. Magazines were printed on a printing press where photo prints were done on photography paper. The stark difference was very noticeable. Times change. Now digital photos and top quality magazines are printed in much the same way. Newspapers and some magazines are till printed on printing presses and the quality of a photo in one of those still show the difference.

Even National Geographic changed over the years. As technology changed they went with it. Go to the library and look at the quality of the photos in a 1920 edition, a 1970's edition and a current edition.

Derrel, you may be right the OP may be high school or college age getting into sports photography, that however does not mean that the op should not get the best bang for their buck now and get their hands on the best technology they can afford now. In the future that technology may and probably will change, but the OP is looking to get into the game now. We both shot film for years and moved to DSLR's when the technology reached the point that it could truly compete. When it comes to sports photography if and when the mirrorless is on an even or better footing you will see sports photographers changing in droves.

 

[pixmedic]

I was genuinely curious. never shot sports, film or digital.
I did shoot a bit of film when i was younger (no other option at the time...you know...'cause im old)
but I shot either my pentax 110 super, or medium format. (Rolleiflex TLR and Mamiya 645)

The other side of the equation that doesn't get mentioned is expectations. In 1972 the trend in lighting was flat, which in todays terms would be boring. Times change. DOF was usually not as deep and as Derrel mentioned we would push the film. Times change. Printing techniques were vastly different back then. Magazines were printed on a printing press where photo prints were done on photography paper. The stark difference was very noticeable. Times change. Now digital photos and top quality magazines are printed in much the same way. Newspapers and some magazines are till printed on printing presses and the quality of a photo in one of those still show the difference.

Even National Geographic changed over the years. As technology changed they went with it. Go to the library and look at the quality of the photos in a 1920 edition, a 1970's edition and a current edition.

Derrel, you may be right the OP may be high school or college age getting into sports photography, that however does not mean that the op should not get the best bang for their buck now and get their hands on the best technology they can afford now. In the future that technology may and probably will change, but the OP is looking to get into the game now. We both shot film for years and moved to DSLR's when the technology reached the point that it could truly compete. When it comes to sports photography if and when the mirrorless is on an even or better footing you will see sports photographers changing in droves.

that does make sense.
i appreciate the clarification.

 

[pixmedic]

Does anyone have any good suggestions for sports cameras under $1000? I'm trying to break into sports photography and I'm not sure where to start.

for the budget listed, and i realize im putting you far back in tech time, but....maybe you should consider something like a D300 and 300mm f/4 AF lens.
the D300, while pretty old now, was in its time a premier DX sports camera and the predecessor to the new D500.
even with its older 12mp sensor, I imagine if you found one in good used condition it would still make a good sports camera.
it has a tremendous AF system thats only recently been improved on, and its built tough and weather resistant.

they are dirt cheap on e-bay at ~$300 for body only and a low shutter count.
Nikon D300 12.3 MP Digital SLR Camera - Black (Body Only) - Shutter Count: 1988 18208254323 | eBay

an older 300mm f/4 AF-ED can also be had reasonably cheap, and the combination would put you well under your $1000 budget.
alternatively, you could also get an older tamron/sigma/tokina 70-200 f/2.8 AF lens with the D300 and still come in on budget.

if your talking body ONLY, i would go with a used D7100.
great AF system and under $700 used in good shape.
used D7200's would also be within your budget.


just a thought.


EDIT: looking at prices on ebay, it might be possible to pick up a lightly used D7100 and an older used tele lens for ~$1000 if you wait and hunt around a bit.

 

[chuasam]

The reason you don't see Olympus and Sony dominating the pro sports photography field is the lack of professional support. NPS and CPS is invaluable for the Working pro.
For sheer capability, the Em1 mk2 is more than sufficient.

My GF is a sports photographer and wields dual D810 cameras. But for large events with very low light she can get a D5 loaner from NPS and all she has to do is pick it up and drop it off when she's done

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[beagle100]

The reason you don't see Olympus and Sony dominating the pro sports photography field is the lack of professional support. NPS and CPS is invaluable for the Working pro.
For sheer capability, the Em1 mk2 is more than sufficient.

k

true, and the selection of lens
and some would say 'image quality" or 'shear' capability
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless