Sports Photography

[canonbraden]

I'm getting into sports photography, mostly baseball. I want to do it for a career. I just started out with the Canon T3, which I still have. Is the Canon 60D a good upgrade to a sports camera before I go for the 5D Mark 3? If not, what is?

 

[gsgary]

Looks like you are going to be very poor

 

[texkam]

Buy glass. Learn to love Spam (not the digital kind).

 

[DBA]

I'm getting into sports photography, mostly baseball. I want to do it for a career. I just started out with the Canon T3, which I still have. Is the Canon 60D a good upgrade to a sports camera before I go for the 5D Mark 3? If not, what is?

How about you share some of your work first?

A $5k camera won't necessarily give you better pictures.

 

[412 Burgh]

however, a $5,000 lens will help your pictures.

 

[gsgary]

My sports set is 2x 1Dmk2's, 300mmF2.8L, 70-200F4L, 200F2.8L, 24-70F2.8L, 50F1.4, 2x and 1.4x extenders 580EX flash

 

[sekhar]

however, a $5,000 lens will help your pictures.

Yeah, Nikon used to have a fantastic tagline that went something like "Nikon. One professional standard every photographer can achieve."

 

[Rahb]

Let me preface by saying I am no pro, nor do I want to make money at this. I am a novice / hobbiest. A self proclaimed dork. The technology and science Behind photography interest me as much, if not more, than the art. From that standing take my viewpoint with a grain of salt:

starting out with your T3i will give you the right challenge level to learn how everything works, but in order to advance to a career level you will need to advance with gear more suited a professional. Something to access and make changes to aspects of your camera quickly, preferably with only your thumb, not needing to delv into a menu.

I own a 60d. I can control focus point, drive mode, ap, shutter speed, iso, and many other things without my eye leaving the viewfinder. This makes sports photography easier ( I only shoot hockey and very beginner level). I would argue the 7d will prepare you better for a 5d than the 60d. And it is more geared to where you want to be. Don't rush though. Learn what you can on your t3i. Get some fast lenses (2.8 70-200, 400, heck maybe even a 24-70. If you can get close enough)

those lenses will still be good for your 5d when you get it. I went Sigma to save money, and I didn't need the ruggedness. Most will argue the L glass would be the better by, but as I mentioned I'm no pro. Hope I helped. Sorry so wordy

 

[canonbraden]

Thank you all for your help. I'm only 15, so it's a work in progress. I mean I slowly will be making my way up to the 5D. Just wondering what camera would be a step up from the T3, then after years of using these cams I would upgrade to the 5D, using it to hopefully shoot at professional or college events.

 

[TCampbell]

A 60D -or- a Canon Rebel T4i (aka 650D) would be a step up because the focusing system uses all cross-type AF points. The 7D would be an even more substantial upgrade.

A 5D would not necessarily be ideal unless it were a 5D III (which has a fantastic focusing system.)

But really... it's the lenses. For sports you need lenses that focus quickly. If you are ONLY taking photos in great lighting, then consumer grade telephoto lenses are fine (as long as they have fast focusing motors). If you are shooting night games under artificial field lights then you _need_ fast lenses (e.g. f/2.8 lenses). But a 300mm f/2.8 lens is _very_ expensive (think $5k -- though you can get 3rd parties a bit cheaper and even cheaper still by shopping for used lenses.)

In any case, sports photography demands more expensive gear because you need long lenses with fast focusing motors which can collect a LOT of light in less-than-ideal situations. That all adds up as the recipe for the most expensive glass in in the store.

 

[canonbraden]

A 60D -or- a Canon Rebel T4i (aka 650D) would be a step up because the focusing system uses all cross-type AF points. The 7D would be an even more substantial upgrade.

A 5D would not necessarily be ideal unless it were a 5D III (which has a fantastic focusing system.)

But really... it's the lenses. For sports you need lenses that focus quickly. If you are ONLY taking photos in great lighting, then consumer grade telephoto lenses are fine (as long as they have fast focusing motors). If you are shooting night games under artificial field lights then you _need_ fast lenses (e.g. f/2.8 lenses). But a 300mm f/2.8 lens is _very_ expensive (think $5k -- though you can get 3rd parties a bit cheaper and even cheaper still by shopping for used lenses.)

In any case, sports photography demands more expensive gear because you need long lenses with fast focusing motors which can collect a LOT of light in less-than-ideal situations. That all adds up as the recipe for the most expensive glass in in the store.

Yes, fast shutter speed too! Glass makes or breaks everything though. I agree.

 

[Tony S]

Sticke with the T3 for now, when you can upgrade your lens, the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is a good starting point for quality glass. Then by the time you are ready for the next upgrade there will be a totally different line up of cameras with features we have not even thought of available on them.

 

[canonbraden]

Sticke with the T3 for now, when you can upgrade your lens, the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is a good starting point for quality glass. Then by the time you are ready for the next upgrade there will be a totally different line up of cameras with features we have not even thought of available on them.

Thanks for the advice. I've been looking at a 70-200 and hope I can get one. Why non-IS?

 

[Rahb]

Sticke with the T3 for now, when you can upgrade your lens, the 70-200 2.8 non-IS is a good starting point for quality glass. Then by the time you are ready for the next upgrade there will be a totally different line up of cameras with features we have not even thought of available on them.

Thanks for the advice. I've been looking at a 70-200 and hope I can get one. Why non-IS?

IS model costs more. You will be shooting at higher shutter speeds which in essence (though some would argue) you are eliminating the need for image stabilizing. Your faster shutter speed is stopping action, your hand moving shouldn't be an issue. Think cost effective then upgrade

i got the Sigma 70-200 2.8 non is. The canon 2.8 is is MUCH higher

 

[canonbraden]

Well is IS necessary or not? I really like shooting sports so I want to produce the best results without spending a billion dollars haha