Sports Photography Camera choice....

[Yamaha_gurl]

Budget: $1000 tops for body.
Need: Something that will take great motorcycle racing photo's.
Want: Video capability
Want: A camera that will take older lenses, aka craigslist.


I know it really comes down to the lens, but I need to pick a camera first, this is the type of photo(s) I take:

Advice?

 

[Rosshole]

CMOS sensor, nice glass.

 

[oldmacman]

Do you currently own any equipment?

 

[Village Idiot]

For $1000 you can very nearly purchase a used 40D and a Canon 70-200 f/4L. Decent 10MP camera that shoots at 5fps and a very sharp high quality lens...as long as video is just a want and not a need, this will work perfectly, imo.

 

[Light Artisan]

D200 or D300 (no video) or D300s (w/video) and some nice glass. D200 will be a lot less money and will be a great performer if you have good lighting, if lighting is poor I'd go for the D300 series.

I shoot Nikon, so that's all I know.

 

[Yamaha_gurl]

Do you currently own any equipment?

I currently own a Sony Alpha 100. So is the general "rule" Canon for action/sports, Nikon for Portrait?

 

[orb9220]

"So is the general "rule" Canon for action/sports, Nikon for Portrait?"

Is flawed? I don't know how that got started except how cams render jpg's. But shooting raw I don't see how that would apply. As to FPS the D300 matches the canon 40D. And color retention,cast,contrast of an image will be more influenced from the lens than the body.

But yep as mentioned would go a used D300 if I could. And have seen them right around that mark of $900-$1100.

Just comes down to picking one system first to fine tune the selection process. As both are great systems. For me came down to ergonomics like fit in hand,feel and button placement being more logical and naturally laid out for me. And preferred the menu layout on the nikon.

I wouldn't even be concerned of nitpicking FPS where one is 5.5 and another is 6.5 or 7. As fps would be used a lot less in the overall package where other features of camera is used a lot more in the day to day shooting.
.

 

[Blake.Oney]

That got started during the conversion from manual to auto focus. Once Nikon's AF system was up to par with Canon's all the sports shooters already owned Canon equipment and didn't want to switch. There, in my opinion is no difference now. Just something that has carried on since then.

 

[Village Idiot]

"So is the general "rule" Canon for action/sports, Nikon for Portrait?"

Is flawed? I don't know how that got started except how cams render jpg's. But shooting raw I don't see how that would apply. As to FPS the D300 matches the canon 40D. And color retention,cast,contrast of an image will be more influenced from the lens than the body.

But yep as mentioned would go a used D300 if I could. And have seen them right around that mark of $900-$1100.

Just comes down to picking one system first to fine tune the selection process. As both are great systems. For me came down to ergonomics like fit in hand,feel and button placement being more logical and naturally laid out for me. And preferred the menu layout on the nikon.

I wouldn't even be concerned of nitpicking FPS where one is 5.5 and another is 6.5 or 7. As fps would be used a lot less in the overall package where other features of camera is used a lot more in the day to day shooting.
.

But the advantage of a 40D is that you can find a used one for about $500.

40D - $500
70-200 f/4L - $470

 

[orb9220]

Yes and can get a D200 for that $500 also as I did.
Or now have a used D90 I picked up for $675 for better iso handling.

And wouldn't have any qualms for using any of the camera mentioned to do sports.
As it really comes down more to the glass! and fast glass at that.

The point being that for outdoor sports it is no longer about Canon or Nikon. Just a body that can get the job done. And either is a fine for the job.
.

 

[Village Idiot]

Yes and can get a D200 for that $500 also as I did.
Or now have a used D90 I picked up for $675 for better iso handling.

And wouldn't have any qualms for using any of the camera mentioned to do sports.
As it really comes down more to the glass! and fast glass at that.

The point being that for outdoor sports it is no longer about Canon or Nikon. Just a body that can get the job done. And either is a fine for the job.
.

In this price range, Nikon doesn't have glass that can compete with Canon 70-200 f/4L. That's the real advantage of going with Canon with this budget if she will buy used.

Nikon has the 80-200 f/2.8, but that looks like it averages about $900 used on FM.

 

[Yamaha_gurl]

Ok, so yes...I see WHERE I can find a camera...but WHY would I want that camera? Meaning, what are the facts as to why this is a good camera for sports photograhy(regarless of where to get one)?

 

[Village Idiot]

Ok, so yes...I see WHERE I can find a camera...but WHY would I want that camera? Meaning, what are the facts as to why this is a good camera for sports photograhy(regarless of where to get one)?

WHY should I help some one being snide?

 

[SrBiscuit]

what about canons mount change?....will that play negatively into buying older lenses? i honestly dont know since im a nikonian.

 

[Yamaha_gurl]

WHY should I help some one being snide?

I'm not being "snide", I'm trying to get that facts. I could listen to Nikon guys saying "it's the best", but I want facts that back that up.

Kinda like me saying a kawasaki is better than a honda...just because I like it. No other reason, get it? :thumbup: