Sports photography on a budget?

Zoran · May 3, 2007

I'm interested in getting into digital sports photography, specifically football, yet every tutorial I've read on it has said there really is no way to get around the fact that you need extremely fast camera, along with an assortment of lenses. Most seem to say, get a Canon Mark II or don't bother showing up at all. Thing is, being a college student I don't exactly have that kind of money to throw around on hobbies. Is there any kind of in-between camera I can get for around $1k (give or take a couple hundred)? Or will I have to leave the action shots to the pros and relegate myself to sideline shots where everyone is just standing around? Thanks in advance.

bnkrecords · May 3, 2007

Now, im very new to photography, but a master in audio engineering. And when people say "everyone says I need to get an MPC 4000 to make good beats" you know what i tell them? Before the MPC 4000 came out, there was something else people used to make good beats. So im sure there is another camera you can get, I personally got the D200 and am loving it. I do alot of action shots and about 25% of the shots come out perfect. Im sure its that low because I am new, but you get my point. hopefully...

lkWinnipesaukee · May 3, 2007

How about a used Canon 20D and a 75-300 f4.5-5.6?

The 20D shoots at 5fps and the lens is good enough for shooting when its not too dark.

Total would be around $1200ish, depending on what you get the 20D for.

spazoid1965 · May 3, 2007

Zoran said:
.. Most seem to say, get a Canon Mark II or don't bother showing up at all....

The lens is more important than the camera. An excellent camera with a slow lens. Will not be useful as good camera with a sharp fast lens.

THORHAMMER · May 3, 2007

you can rent lenses for about 20-30 bucks for a weekend

Seefutlung · May 3, 2007

I actually shoot a lot of sports ... without at least a 2.8 and a Canon ... you are dead. (you're not really dead without a Canon ... but if you're shooting at night you will have to crank up the ISO and Canon has the least amount of noise at higher ISOs of any camera brand.)

Get a 20D/30D both are 5 Frames Per Second and they (Canon) once again has the least noise (grain) at higher ISOs. (You can get away with a cheaper XT/XTi but your FPS will drop to three which is almost like single shot.)

Get a 70-200 F/2.8 Canon or Sigma zoom. The 2.8 will increase the speed and accuracy of the autofocus and give a good subject isolation due to a limited DOF at 2.8. Both these factors are useful for daylight and night time shooting.

If you are gonna shoot small time college or high school ... their night time stadium lighting generally sucks ... big time. You'll be shooting ISO 1600 at 2.8 at maybe 1/500 of a second ... pretty close to minimum speed to stop action.

Gary

firemedic0135 · May 4, 2007

I also shoot alot of sports and I can tell you that 3 fps is not quite fast enough and like the above comment you will need a lens that has a 2.8 aperture to shoot night sports.I myself just bought a 30d mainly for the 5 fps capture rate and the better noise control at high iso.

I think you can get the 20d A bit cheaper and then mabye a sigma,tokina 70-200mm 2.8 and be around 1000-1300 usd from ebay.That would be a pretty nice football Rig IMO.

Garbz · May 4, 2007

If you can get the timing right even 1fps will be enough. I used to take sports photos on my old manual advance Nikon FE. Much slower than 1fps

. That didn't stop me from getting a picture of a player who's foot just came in contact with the ball and lost his shoe.

Having a fast autodrive ruins the fun

Zoran · May 4, 2007

Wow, thanks for all the responses. Glad to know I'll be able to give sports photography a shot (no pun intended). I'm definitely going to have a look at getting a used 20d and a 70-200mm F/2.8 to go with it. Any suggestions of where to start looking beside eBay?

Seefutlung · May 4, 2007

Zoran said:
Wow, thanks for all the responses. Glad to know I'll be able to give sports photography a shot (no pun intended). I'm definitely going to have a look at getting a used 20d and a 70-200mm F/2.8 to go with it. Any suggestions of where to start looking beside eBay?

Try all the Photo Forums, Fred Miranda, DGRIN, This one ... L lens tend to hold their value ... so don't expect a deal on the 70-200. I have a friend who is selling his 70-200 F/2.8 NON-IS for $950.00. He takes very good care of his equipment.

Since money is no object ... you want want to get the battery grip next ... it doubles your battery power, allows easier verticals and will balance out the feels of the camera with the long lens. It also gives a place for your pinky to hang out ... otherwise it just sorta floats around in mid-air.

Gary

TwistMyArm · May 4, 2007

Zoran said:
Any suggestions of where to start looking beside eBay?

In the upper right you'll see links to B&H and Adorama (if you dont' see the adorama below the B&H just refresh the page as it alternates with Mel's Camera.) Wouldn't hurt to check them out.

table1349 · May 4, 2007

I do shoot sports for one of the local collages. What has been said above is quite true, you need a decent camera and great glass. I am a hobbist so spending $4000 for a 1DMIII just doesn't makes sense. (Ok, not at this point at least) The 30D does me just fine. The 70-200mm f2.8 is a good lens to shoot sports with. It's what I use now. That an the 85mm f1.8 for indoor sports.

You mentioned shooting football. One thing that you need to keep in mind, even with the above equipment, you will have a limited chance of getting those really stunning frame filling facial expressions shots when they are on the 30 yard line of further. You just won't have enough lens from where you will probably be shooting. When they get closer to you it will get better. That is why I am getting close to pulling the trigger on the 400mm f2.8 at $6500.00. But I also want to have a longer lens for shooting wildlife. Not trying to put a damper on what you are wanting to do, just want you to be aware of some of the special needs for sports like football where your ability to get close is limited. Have fun, it is great to be able to do so.

Well except for this guy.

Makes me cry just looking at it.

Deadeye008 · May 5, 2007

Not to hijack the thread but, is the 30d worth the price over the 20d?

Seefutlung · May 5, 2007

Deadeye008 said:
Not to hijack the thread but, is the 30d worth the price over the 20d?

Bigger LCD and a bigger/better buffer ... for sports ... yeah (but not a big "yeah" just a sorta "yeah" ... but only if you divide the couple hundred difference over the life time of the camera ... five years? ... three years?

For sports the 20D buffer fills up real fast and I've had to rethink/alter the way I shoot long plays in sports like soccer. As the play develops one has to back off the shutter release just to keep the buffer from filling completely and the cameras becoming useless. The 30D has a much bigger/better buffer which allows you to go longer before shutting down. But I shoot RAW ... with JPEG it's a different story. (And I believe that 30D has a slightly improved/quicker autofocus.) Your IQ will be the same, as the 30D uses the same sensor as the 20D.

Gary