questions for sports photographers: do you shoot video in addition to stills?

[foundingfilms]

I am holiday shopping for someone who wants to become a sports/wedding photographer.

Should I buy an hd video camcorder and DSLR, or just a DSLR with hd video? How useful is video out there in the field?

My friend is looking into getting into wedding photography/videography sports/events photography/videogrpahy and this will be their present.

Can any of the DSLR cameras shoot both stills and video at the same time? Or if one chooses to shoot stills, must one stop shooting hd video?

With hd video camcorders available for around $500, I might just buy both an hd video camcorder and a DSLR.

Any insights on this?

Which hd video camcorder and/or dslr would you buy?

Isn't the hdvideo camcorder easier to use for video/have better audio controls?

Thanks for your feedback!

 

[lamergod]

Get him a normal DSLR,HD movie is pretty much useless in the field because of the slow AF speed from the DSLR in movie mode.Another thing which is very important is lens.Does he/she already have a camera body?If he have one,I'd rather you give a lens than a body

 

[Big Mike]

What would you say to someone who wants to be both a plumber and an electrician?
I might say 'Pick one and get really good at it, rather than being mediocre at both'.

 

[jclyde]

I'm in agreement with Mike.
Wedding and sports photography are two completely different animals, and typically require different equipment. Wedding photography is best done with a full frame sensor, while sports photography is usually shot with camera bodies that have (aps-c or aps-h) crop-sensors.
And lens selections vary greatly. However, a fast (f2.8 or better) image stabilized telephoto lens works well for both.
If they don't yet have a camera body, a Canon 7D or Nikon D300S are probably your best bet for acceptable quality for wedding photography and acceptable speed for sports photography. And both offer excellent crossover ability to shoot HD video.
And I can't think of anyone who wouldn't appreciate a 70-200mm f2.8 IS lens, unless they already have one.
Cost might be a factor though, as all of the above run $1600 to $1800 each.

 

[foundingfilms]

thanks peeps! someone pointed me earlier here for a solution:



what's your take on this?

 

[yoballer914]

I am no expert so maybe I shouldn't even comment but that just seems completely impractical. I would imagine that would be heavy, bulky and difficult to keep steady and on the subject. I am courious to know if anyone has ever used such a set up.

 

[foundingfilms]

seems the camera masses could actually be stabilizing influences?

and cameras are so light these days that even after attahcing two of them together, it will be lighter than either a dslr or a video camera from a few years ago?

would have to test the ergnomics, but seems a lot of upside... considering one's most valuable asset... time...

 

[gsgary]

thanks peeps! someone pointed me earlier here for a solution:



what's your take on this?

Load of rubbish, i move my camera too quick and if you had a 300mmF2.8 on a monopod where would it go then because 300mm is minimum for most sports i shoot
I don't ever want a camera with video

 

[photographyprogess]

The solution on the pic won't be that practical as video will usually require one person handling the video camera and one on the photo cam. I started myself filming, and later started to do photography as it will not require as much planning as filming, and I would never do both at the same time as I would loose control on both.

For video you would also need a separate lighting and at least one external mic (preferable with xlr connections). And the 500 $ won't have the xlr connection, so it won't be suitable for external audio.

So photography and video will require two separate operators. In my opinion your friend should just do one of the things as it'll be too difficult to do everything himself.