Sports Photography

[mimartin]

Does anyone have a suggestion for a good SLR or P&S for sports photography. I have a FujiFilm S5100 and I like the action shots that I get and the zoom, but need something with 8+ MP so I'm in the market for a new camera. I would like to have 2+ fps on the continuous shooting and anything for low light conditions would help. I shoot some night and indoor games and don't have as much luck as the day games. Of course I'm wanting to spend as less as possible, but I'm willing to consider and hold out for something up to maybe $1500 (with flash and lenses, if necessary) or possibly more. I've looked at the Canon Rebel XTi but the zoom lenses are so expensive. Any advice is appreciated.

 

[D-50]

Dont concern youorself with 8+ megapixels. If your going to get a DSLR the 6mp D50 is more or less conparable to the rebel XT. The images will both be great it just depends on what camera and system you prefer.

 

[usayit]

Don't forget that the size of the internal buffer is equally as important as frame per sec. Nothing is more fustrating than missing some great shots because the camera's internal buffer fills up too fast. Once that internal buffer is filled, you'll only be able to shoot as quick as the camera can offload to the media card. Don't worry about 8+ MP.

The nikon D50 (i'm assuming D-50 shoots with one) shoots 2.5fps but only sustainable until its internal buffer of 12 JPG images are filled. The D80 is 3fps up to 23 jpeg images. The D40 is rated at 2.5fps and listed as "unlimited" jpg for buffer. I'm assuming this means that the write to the media card is fast enough to keep up with the 2.5 fps burst. The Canon 20D is 5 fps up to 23 JPEG images and the 30D brings the internal buffer to 30jpeg. The XTi is 3 fps up to 27 jpeg images. (according to a quick lookup on dpreview).

In your case, its a balance between fps, buffer size, and cost. if you can live with 6mp sensor the Nikon D40 with its "unlimited" seems to fit the bill quiet nicely.. not too expensive too. From Canon's offerings, think the older 20D fits the bill quite nicely. Compared to the Nikon D40, It has double the fps, provides 23 jpeg buffer, and has the 8mp sensor you originally wanted.


BTW... Can't Canon and Nikon be more creative with the camera designations? Sheesh... 5D, 10D, 20D, 30D, D30, D40, D50, D60, D70, D80...

 

[mimartin]

Thank y'all so much. See, internal buffer is something that I didn't even know about, much less took into consideration. Is that what it means when it says will shoot 40 frames at 3fps, storing the first or last three? Is 40 the internal buffer? The only reason that I was stuck on 8MP is I offer prints up to 20x30 and read somewhere that you'd really need 8MP+ to accomplish this successfully. But, the camera that I have now is only 4MP and customers have purchased 20x30. I haven't heard any complaints so far, so I'm sure I'd be happy with a 6MP. I'm really nervous about getting my first real SLR b/c I'm not knowledgable on the lenses and don't want to loose any of the '10x' zoom. Do you have any suggestions on the lenses? And I've read about extenders, do they help? Do you loose quality when using them? Thanks so much!!!

 

[D-50]

I do shoot with a d50 and rarely use burst shooting but I think when I was reading the manual you can shoot much more than 12 frames in JPEG before the buffer fills up. You may only be able to shoot 12 frames in Raw. I could be wrong though. As for enlarging photos for prints the larger sensor size of DSLRs vs Point and shoots will mean more. I have taken a 2 inch by 6 inch crop and blown it up to 13 by 30 and did not loose any noticeable quality. When I was looking into cameras I too was concerned with the images ability to be blown up to large sizes looking back though any decent DSLR will allow you to blow up photos much larger than their Point and Shoot Megapixel counterparts.​

 

[usayit]

Just checked... dpreview specifically states the nikon D50 with 2.5 fps up to 12 jpegs. Which basically means you can burst up to 12 jpegs at 2.5 fps. Once the buffer of 12 jpegs is full, your fps will drop below 2.5 fps. I'm assuming raw mode will fill up the internal buffer even faster.

In comparison, the Canon 1d-mark II (i know. its out of price range.. just talkin) has 8.5 fps at 40 jpegs and 20 in raw with 8mp sensor. The big brother (expensive) 1ds-markII has 4 fps at 32 jpeg and 11 in raw but has a huge 16mp sensor. For fine art, one would choose the larger sensor in the 1ds-markII but the sports photo pros will opt for the speedy 1d-markII. Before digital the EOS 1v with power drive was able to shoot at 10 fps.

 

[mimartin]

Thanks! I'm going to do some research on the D40 and 20D and compare them with the Rebel. I appreciate y'alls input!

 

[Jeremy Z]

Sorry to throw a monkeywrench in here, but I think you should consider something with image stabilization. True, it won't help reduce the subject movement, but it will take out a couple stops worth of your hand-shake and lead to sharper pictures. You can also get away with more affordable lenses this way.

I think I'm going to get a Pentax K100D myself. I think I will be OK with the f/4-5.6 lenses as long as I have the anti shake built into the body. Then of course, I will have at least one fast prime lens for available light shots without flash.

 

[Don Simon]

Do you have any suggestions on the lenses? And I've read about extenders, do they help? Do you loose quality when using them? Thanks so much!!!

It's good that you asked about lenses. High FPS continuous shooting will allow you to take a lot of shots in a short period of time, but really it's the lenses that will be the limiting factor for the content and quality of each shot. I don't know what sport you're photographing or how close you can get to the action, so I don't know what focal length you'd need. What I can tell you is that if you want good shots in low light conditions without flash you should look for the fastest lens(es) you can afford, i.e. the one with the largest maximum aperture as signified by a low f-number.

With teleconverters, you lose quality and you also lose light. Generally a 1.4x teleconverter will give you extra reach without sacrificing too much in the way of light or image quality. 2x ones tend not to be so good.

Jeremy, I am very happy with my K100d and hope you will be too; it and a fast 50mm are a great combination. The only thing I feel I should warn you is that the buffer is fairly shallow - it's not a camera for extended continuous shooting. Personally I never take more than about 3 continuous shots anyway (I prefer to time the shots well and not take more than necessary) so it's not a problem for me, may not be for you either buy I should mention it anyway.

 

[usayit]

Image stabilization (from the cameras discussed) isn't really in his budget either... nor will it stop action. Alternative option is to bump up the ISO, allow the internal processor to do its work and deal with the noise post production.

A monopod is much more reachable within the $1500 budget.