Looking for equipment best for action sports:

[Sw1tchFX]

Just get a cheap, old Nikon D200 (5 FPS... not that bad considering your budget) and a 50mm f/1.4 and you're set.

heck yeah, that seems like a pretty good idea. sub in the 50mm f/1.8 and you could also squeeze in something like an 18-70.

 

[table1349]

I am an aspiring action sports photographer.I have owned a Nikon SLR but back then I had no clue what I was doing and currently I own a simple point and shoot.I am not looking for a high dollar camera but something I wont get bored with or use to it's full potential.Here is what I am looking for in the camera:

-flash sync of 250th of a second
-quick shutter speed capabilities for sequencing
-auto focusing

Basically something that is great for action sports,cars on a track and other faster moving subjects.Any help is greatly appreciated.

:thumbup:

I was told to check out the Canon Rebel series - XSi

Just some food for thought from a photographer who's main interest is sports. Sports photography is one of the most demanding forms of photography, not only on the photographer but on the gear as well. It is also one of the most expensive forms of photography. There are some basic requirements in your gear for sports photography.

Good glass is a must. Often that also means fast glass which means more expensive glass. Good glass is not only optically good, but must have fast auto focus capabilities as well. I personally shoot Canon. Two of Canon's expensive prime lenses that are very fast are the 50mm f1.2L and the 85mm f1.2L. Expensive and fast (aperture wise), but both have slow auto focus making them unsuitable for action. They are top notch in the studio however.

Second, unless you are very close, you need some reach for most sports. Volleyball and Basketball are the two that I can use short glass on as I am at the baseline or sideline of the court. Other sports, reach is usually a must. One very popular lens for sports with some reach is the 70-200 2.8. Most of the companies have one in their arsenal of lenses. You can save some on this lens by forgoing IS/VR technology. Image shake reduction is pretty much useless for sports.

Along with reach, you will find that a wide varity of focal lengths are nice. I always try to shoot primes if possible. They are sharper and usually faster glass than zooms. A lot of time my main body will be a prime and my second and third body will be tele-zooms. There is always a pime or two in the mix depending on what sport I am shooting.

A decent body is also pretty much a requirement for sports. In the Canon line at least, the rebel/XXXD series really aren't well suited to the challenge. Not because of the lower fps, but the entry level bodies have the slowest auto focus capabilities. Something that is very important in sports photography.

Don't get me wrong, I am not meaning to slam the rebel line, they do a good job, but they are designed with the general entry lever photographer in mind so some of the higher end features are left off. The XXD bodies are pretty decent and the 1D MIII is killer fast and accurate. This again comes at a cost.

The way around this with an entry level body is not spray and pray with fps, but with planing, anticipation and practice. Know what shot you want and be prepared to capture it and you will get more keepers with an entry level body. This is the same thing we did 30+ years ago when there was no autofocus. You planned your shots well and pretty much pre focused for that shot, or at least were in the range needed to quickly focus manually.

FPS can be nice, but not a giant must. Spray and pray is only going to be as good as the autofocus on the body can keep up. Of greater value is low noise/high ISO. Indoors or low light means cranking up the ISO. Low noise/high ISO also, like everything else comes at a cost.

If you are on a tight budget then I would evaluate carefully where you want to go and what you plan to shoot and learn the gear necessary to accomplish the task. With that knowledge you will have a base to go look at systems. Keep in mind, unlike a P&S you are not buying a camera, you are buying a system. You want to get a system that will grow with you in the future to meet your needs.

I would suggest you start off with a good lens. The afore mentioned 70-200 f2.8 would be a good start. I believe that Nikon also had an older 80-200 f2.8 that was highly regarded and can be had used at a good price these days. Then spend the rest of the money on the best quality body you can that meets the needs of a sports photographer. Keep in mind that not every body meets those needs. The Canon 5D and 5D MII are outstanding in the studio and for landscape etc, and are realatively expensive bodies from Canon, but not suited for sports. Good luck.

 

[JerryPH]

Well, if he gets down to the track itself instead of just in the stands and is willing to risk the hurricane that is cars coming around the bend... 50mm could do just fine, especially on a crop body. I was really trying to work within the $1,000 limitation here.

... and you were doing far better than I was with respect to budget.

However, have you ever been within 50-75 feet of a speeding car on a track? I have, and it is a bit hair raising and definitely not safe. 200mm is what I would consider the minimum, 300mm would be better.

I think some kind of fork is obvious here. It is hard to get fast lenses and cameras for a thousand dollars that meet the needs of the OP to any great extent. They will have to either accept a lower level of functionality/performance or (what I would do), save longer to increase the budget. At the same time, keep my eye open for good used equipment that closer meets the needs better.

Perhaps not an answer that the OP wants to hear, but the end result will get them way closer to accomplishing their goals... what do you think?

 

[iHTCHBK]

... and you were doing far better than I was with respect to budget.

However, have you ever been within 50-75 feet of a speeding car on a track? I have, and it is a bit hair raising and definitely not safe. 200mm is what I would consider the minimum, 300mm would be better.

I think some kind of fork is obvious here. It is hard to get fast lenses and cameras for a thousand dollars that meet the needs of the OP to any great extent. They will have to either accept a lower level of functionality/performance or (what I would do), save longer to increase the budget. At the same time, keep my eye open for good used equipment that closer meets the needs better.

Perhaps not an answer that the OP wants to hear, but the end result will get them way closer to accomplishing their goals... what do you think?

Never a problem to wait for better equipment. :thumbup:

 

[iHTCHBK]

Just to make it clear I do not plan to be a pro at anything,just want something so I can capture great shots and make them nice w/out b/s because I purchased a $200 camera ahaha.

 

[howieh]

well I think 70-200 2.8L has pretty good range and a great lens~

 

[TUX424]

There is the 85 f1.8 that would work for basketball and some other sports, but i also this last season on a 50 f1.8 which was great.
I was thinking about getting the 85 f1.8 but i was think i might as well just get the 80-200 f2.8

 

[techlogik]

Mmmmmm...how much do you want to spend?

Here is the problem with photography, if you really start to get into it, you will realize within months that whatever you probably bought if it was under $1200...probably isn't going to cut it.

So, with no idea of how much you want to spend, here is what I would do. Since you know Nikon, get the D300...can't go wrong with it...yeah it costs $1500...but heck, it will last you for the next 10 years probably.

Then get a couple of good lenses...ok, that might be another $2000...but hey, that is what you figure out with photography..maybe you can buy some good zoom lenses, or the all around Nikkon 18-200mm might be enought for you..who knows.

All I can say, if money is an issue, stay away from Canon...the lenses will run you the cost of college tuition...the bodies half as much....

 

[photogincollege]

Mmmmmm...how much do you want to spend?

Here is the problem with photography, if you really start to get into it, you will realize within months that whatever you probably bought if it was under $1200...probably isn't going to cut it.

So, with no idea of how much you want to spend, here is what I would do. Since you know Nikon, get the D300...can't go wrong with it...yeah it costs $1500...but heck, it will last you for the next 10 years probably.

Then get a couple of good lenses...ok, that might be another $2000...but hey, that is what you figure out with photography..maybe you can buy some good zoom lenses, or the all around Nikkon 18-200mm might be enought for you..who knows.

All I can say, if money is an issue, stay away from Canon...the lenses will run you the cost of college tuition...the bodies half as much....

Sorry but there are a couple misleading statements in this post. For one, there are easily lots of pro quality lenses for under a 1200. Some new, many used. And second, most Nikon pro lenses actually cost more then the canon equivalent. And I'm a Nikon Shooter!

 

[table1349]

Mmmmmm...how much do you want to spend?

Here is the problem with photography, if you really start to get into it, you will realize within months that whatever you probably bought if it was under $1200...probably isn't going to cut it.

So, with no idea of how much you want to spend, here is what I would do. Since you know Nikon, get the D300...can't go wrong with it...yeah it costs $1500...but heck, it will last you for the next 10 years probably.

Then get a couple of good lenses...ok, that might be another $2000...but hey, that is what you figure out with photography..maybe you can buy some good zoom lenses, or the all around Nikkon 18-200mm might be enought for you..who knows.

All I can say, if money is an issue, stay away from Canon...the lenses will run you the cost of college tuition...the bodies half as much....

Really..... That is an interesting quote.

B&H prices on 3 comparable/popular sports lens in varying price ranges & focal lengths

Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM = $1499.00 ($1,699.00 before rebate)
Nikon AF VR Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 G-AFS ED-IF = $1,899.95

Canon EF 400mm f2.8 IS USM = $6800.00
Nikon AF VR Nikkor 400mm f2.8 = $8,799.95

Canon EF 85mm f1.8 USM = $355.00
Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f1.8 = $449.95

B&H prices on Bodies:

Canon EOS 50D = $1,199.99
Nikon D 90 = 949.95
Nikon D300 = $1,799.95
Nikon D700 = $2999.95
Nikon D700 with MB D10 grip(to provide the most comparable features)= $3525.90
Canon 1D MIII = $3844.95

Heck, with out even using new math, I can tell which price is higher in lenses and bodies when compared for features aren't that different between Nikon and Canon.

 

[blash]

I'd still buy everything used, but you have a point. Still prefer Nikon for the ergonomics...

 

[table1349]

Sorry but there are a couple misleading statements in this post. For one, there are easily lots of pro quality lenses for under a 1200. Some new, many used. And second, most Nikon pro lenses actually cost more then the canon equivalent. And I'm a Nikon Shooter!

Yep and they are both darn fine systems, each with advantages and disadvantages.

That is not to say that the other systems aren't fine systems. Nikon and Canon are probably the two systems with the greatest amount of choices and options. Any buyer needs to compare system features for what they intend to shoot and make a decision based on their needs, not just a name.

 

[usayit]

My vote is to wait and save (do research in the mean time) or perhaps rent. Gryph's post hit it on the nail. Sports photography is one of the most demanding on the both the photographer and equipment (expensive).

You just *might* pull it off within that budget with some old (but good) fast manual glass to a compatible budget (used) DSLR. Since it is manual focus, doing so would take considerable practice just like sports photographers prior to AF. You'll have to choose your location very carefully and prefocus on an area. You'll have to know the sport and subjects very well. Personally, I've enjoyed the challenge but I'll go home with far less than the AF wiz next to me.

Both Pentax (K-mount) and Nikon have good support for older manual lenses. Canon not so great.