DSLR for Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

[Ballistics]

I run a blog where I do reviews on gear for BJJ and I want to upgrade from a point and shoot to a DSLR so I can make the pictures look professional and high quality. I also want to be able to take shots of teammates during competitions.

So after doing a little research I find my self a bit stuck on choosing a camera. Initially, I was set on buying a Nikon D3100 because it was right at the tip of my budget ($650) and from what I have read it would be perfect for my gear reviews. However, I have also read that it wasn't the greatest choice for action shots. That's where I am lost on choosing a camera.

From my understanding, the lack of an AF motor is the issue with entry level Nikons, and also the issue with action shots. I don't know if my understanding is correct but that is what I seem to be getting out of my research. So is there a camera in my price range that would be good for that? I am also open to used cameras as well.

 

[scorpion_tyr]

Until you know exactly what to look for I would shy away from used cameras. I know nothing of Nikon, but I would personally just get the bottom of the line Canon DSLR (more than good enough for what you're wanting) and take the rest of your money and try to get a good lens and probably an external flash. No matter how you go about it, you're probably looking at at least $1,000 worth of gear to get good quality shots, but on the other hand, a Canon XS with kit lens and built in flash will probably still work a lot better than a point and shoot.

 

[Village Idiot]

I run a blog where I do reviews on gear for BJJ and I want to upgrade from a point and shoot to a DSLR so I can make the pictures look professional and high quality. I also want to be able to take shots of teammates during competitions.

So after doing a little research I find my self a bit stuck on choosing a camera. Initially, I was set on buying a Nikon D3100 because it was right at the tip of my budget ($650) and from what I have read it would be perfect for my gear reviews. However, I have also read that it wasn't the greatest choice for action shots. That's where I am lost on choosing a camera.

From my understanding, the lack of an AF motor is the issue with entry level Nikons, and also the issue with action shots. I don't know if my understanding is correct but that is what I seem to be getting out of my research. So is there a camera in my price range that would be good for that? I am also open to used cameras as well.

To be able to take professional looking shots, you have to know how to take professional quality photos and what gear you need for it. Product photography is all about lighting. Action shots while a match is in progress is going to be all about timing, the right lenses, the right body, and other factors. Even if you go and spend $2,000 on a setup, I don't think it will help you until you learn how to use the equipment.

A used body can be a great way to go. You get a camera that performs well and handles better than an entry level machine. Most photographers tend to take care of a camera that originally costs them over $1,000 for just a body. For $650 though, you're going to barely be able to afford a used camera, a kit lens, and maybe some sort of manual flash. You'll be underwhelmed with the performance of the kit lens and even spending $100 on something like a 50 f/1.8 will get you nowhere. You'd need at least an 85 f/1.8 for about $400 and depending on how close you are to the action, that still might not get you desired results.

 

[Ballistics]

Ok thanks for the replies. Now, I have been finding used cameras like the Nikon D200 and the canon 30D locally for around $3-450 with a kit lens. Would that suffice for a starter camera? What exactly would I be looking for?

I understand I have to know how to learn how to use the DSLR, and that is what I plan on doing. I just want to have the equipment for my needs so when I do finally know what I am doing, I don't have to upgrade immediately

 

[Kerbouchard]

Unfortunately, you picked one of the most challenging, and expensive, types of photography...Indoor, action shots where flash will probably be prohibited. Shots like that are at the limits of cameras that are 4 times your price range. Heck, the type of lens you need is 4 times your price range.

If you can get close to the action, you might be able to get away with a used Nikon D90 and a 50mm 1.8. It won't be ideal, but I think it is about the cheapest you are going to be able to go and still get decent results.

 

[Ballistics]

Unfortunately, you picked one of the most challenging, and expensive, types of photography...Indoor, action shots where flash will probably be prohibited. Shots like that are at the limits of cameras that are 4 times your price range. Heck, the type of lens you need is 4 times your price range.

If you can get close to the action, you might be able to get away with a used Nikon D90 and a 50mm 1.8. It won't be ideal, but I think it is about the cheapest you are going to be able to go and still get decent results.

Ouch really? Even though it is brightly lit?

 

[memento]

Unfortunately, you picked one of the most challenging, and expensive, types of photography...Indoor, action shots where flash will probably be prohibited. Shots like that are at the limits of cameras that are 4 times your price range. Heck, the type of lens you need is 4 times your price range.

what he said.
except flash probably wont be prohibited, more so another expense.

 

[molested_cow]

You are looking at two types of categories here. Product photography and indoor sports.

I've been doing quite a bit of product photography for internal use for our office, so this is not for official PR photography. In any case, depending on how you want the photos to look like. You can do a straight forward catalog style shot of the product that shows as many sides with as much detail definition, or you can do stylized shots with dramatic lighting.

Examples:

VS

These are just examples I grabbed off the internet. The first photo uses telephoto lens because you want to have little perspective distortion to show as many sides of the product as possible. You also need so have maximum depth of field to capture as much details as possible. The lighting tends to be evenly lit for the same purpose.

The second shot will need a macro type of lens for obvious reasons. The lighting is more dramatic with purposely placed reflections which blinds out details.

The photo studio I have access to has three round defused lights. No flash is used, so everything depends on those lights, a tripod and remote release.

Indoor photography wise, you definitely need a fast telephoto lens with a camera that has excellent in low light ( high ISO capability). The D7000 comes to mind. You definitely also want to be equipped with strobe skills and gears.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Ouch really? Even though it is brightly lit?

The thing is I doubt it is actually brightly lit. Just about the only indoor sporting events that are actually brightly lit are professional events where there is TV coverage. I assume you have taken some pictures in this gym with your P&S...what were the settings the camera chose? ISO? Shutter Speed? Aperture? Did your camera fire it's flash? That will let us know what the light levels really are and we should be able to give more targeted advice for your specific situation.

Will you be allowed to use flash at the event?

 

[Ballistics]

Ouch really? Even though it is brightly lit?

The thing is I doubt it is actually brightly lit. Just about the only indoor sporting events that are actually brightly lit are professional events where there is TV coverage. I assume you have taken some pictures in this gym with your P&S...what were the settings the camera chose? ISO? Shutter Speed? Aperture? Did your camera fire it's flash? That will let us know what the light levels really are and we should be able to give more targeted advice for your specific situation.

Will you be allowed to use flash at the event?

Most, if not all BJJ tournaments take place in college sports arenas. The mundials last week took place in the walter pyramid.

And no, flashes are not permitted.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Looking at the EXIF data of the picture that you posted, it was a Nikon D3 with a 24-70 2.8 at ISO 2500, 1/350th of a second, at f/5. The camera runs about $4000 and the lens is around $1900.

Unfortunately, you are not going to find anything in your price range that will be able to produce clean shots under those conditions. If $650 is really your top end and you can't get any closer than where that picture was taken from, I am afraid you are not going to be able to get the results you are looking for.

Cameras in your price range are going to have a max usable ISO around 800, your lenses will be variable aperture and at the long end be at 5.6. With the limitations that you will have, you will probably be getting close to 1/15th of a second and that just isn't going to work with a fast moving subject.

 

[Ballistics]

Ill be on the sidelines. Like where the referee is, thats where Ill be. No more than 10 ft away from the competitors.

 

[Kerbouchard]

Ok, if you can get that close, than you should be okay with a 50mm 1.8. The 85mm 1.8 would be a better choice, but it's out of your price range. As far as the camera, you will need a body that has a focus motor and acceptable noise at ISO 1600. D90 with a 50mm 1.8 is pretty close to your price range and should get you decent results. The D200 struggles at ISO 800 and may limit your shutter speed to something too slow to stop the action.

 

[Ballistics]

Ok awesome info. Thanks.

 

[djacobox372]

Ok thanks for the replies. Now, I have been finding used cameras like the Nikon D200 and the canon 30D locally for around $3-450 with a kit lens. Would that suffice for a starter camera? What exactly would I be looking for?

I understand I have to know how to learn how to use the DSLR, and that is what I plan on doing. I just want to have the equipment for my needs so when I do finally know what I am doing, I don't have to upgrade immediately

The D200 has an older CCD sensor, which isn't as good in low light (indoor) situations, the D3100 would be a better choice IMO. If you can't afford a new DSLR, then you may want to consider a used d80, which is similar to the D200 but about $150 cheaper. But what really matters is the lens, so you'll need at least $350 left over for that. Do you need a telephoto lens? or are you up close taking photos?

The sigma 24-70mm f2.8 or the tamron 28-75mm f2.8 are good lenses for close range stuff. A fast telephoto is likely out of your budget.

If you can live without zoom, an 85mm f1.8 would be an awesome choice.

The AF motor wont give you more focusing speed, it just allows you to use "AF" lenses. This is more of a cost saving/compatibility feature, because "AF" lenses actually focus slower then their more expensive AF-S counterparts.