Staring sports photography........

[SHaller]

I know I am beating a dead horse wit the topic of making money off of sports photography, but Im not here to ask all the generic questions. I'll just give you my game plan and let me know what you think.

I live in a fairly small community that is close nit and I also have many other well off middle class neighborhoods within a 10 mile radius. On any given weekend there are at least 30-40 youth/high school games going on in the spring/summer/fall. I also have grown up playing in these leagues, so i know where the sport are played and I know people and parents within the organizations. I have yet to short a sporting event, so I plan on shooting a couple events of my friends younger siblings(I'm 19) to get the hang of it and to create a portfolio. From what I hear, It really isn't too difficult because you are capturing a moment rather than creating one.

Instead of selling individual prints, I plan on trying to get hired to shoot one kid. I was having trouble finding what people charged, but it seems like the going rate was $125-150. Considering that, I would probably charge $100 per game. I also considered doing a combined package where If 2 parents both want their child photographed on the same team, I would charge $150. The package would include x amount of picture files on a dvd and an 8x10 print.

Now on to my lens dilemma. I was hoping to buy a canon 100-400 for my next big purchase(My main focus for recreation is wildlife, nature, and birds), but It looks like i may now have to spend that money on a 70-200 2.8. I was really looking forward to getting the 100-400 and a 1.4 tc, so I was wondering if i would still be alright if i got the sigma 70-200 2.8 instead of the canon. That way i could still afford both the canon 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8.

Let me know what you think

 

[thingsIsee]

I would go with the Canon 70-200 IS USM lens and build a portfolio with that first. See if there is a market for what you are trying to do. Maybe do a few games put something together and work to crowd. You might be able to advertise in the school paper. Remember people want something for nothing and they would like to see what their $100 is going to get them first.

The Sigma is a decent enough lens but you will be much happier with the Canon in the long run. You didn’t say what camera your using so I would assume it is a cropped sensor which will give you a longer reach then just 200mm anyway.

 

[SHaller]

I would go with the Canon 70-200 IS USM lens and build a portfolio with that first. See if there is a market for what you are trying to do. Maybe do a few games put something together and work to crowd. You might be able to advertise in the school paper. Remember people want something for nothing and they would like to see what their $100 is going to get them first.

The Sigma is a decent enough lens but you will be much happier with the Canon in the long run. You didn’t say what camera your using so I would assume it is a cropped sensor which will give you a longer reach then just 200mm anyway.

I am pretty sure there is a market. Also, i have yet to see any competition for this. The only photographers i see working with these organizations are ones doing team portraits. I know that the canon 70-200 is a better option, but i am having trouble justifying it.

 

[cliffy13]

. From what I hear, It really isn't too difficult because you are capturing a moment rather than creating one.

k

Am I reading this part of your thread correctly you think sports photography is not difficult,well if that is the case you are heading down a rocky road because sport photography and by that I mean good sports photiography is difficult and takes lots of practice

 

[Derrel]

SNIP>I have yet to short a sporting event, so I plan on shooting a couple events of my friends younger siblings(I'm 19) to get the hang of it and to create a portfolio. From what I hear, It really isn't too difficult because you are capturing a moment rather than creating one.

Instead of selling individual prints, I plan on trying to get hired to shoot one kid. I was having trouble finding what people charged, but it seems like the going rate was $125-150. Considering that, I would probably charge $100 per game. I also considered doing a combined package where If 2 parents both want their child photographed on the same team, I would charge $150. The package would include x amount of picture files on a dvd and an 8x10 print.

Now on to my lens dilemma. I was hoping to buy a canon 100-400 for my next big purchase(My main focus for recreation is wildlife, nature, and birds), but It looks like i may now have to spend that money on a 70-200 2.8. I was really looking forward to getting the 100-400 and a 1.4 tc, so I was wondering if i would still be alright if i got the sigma 70-200 2.8 instead of the canon. That way i could still afford both the canon 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8.

Let me know what you think

I think you have no idea of what this entails. If you think without having shot a single event one can shoot a "couple" of events and put together "a portfolio", well, you are sadly mistaken. Also, the Sigma 70-200 is know as a rather slow-focusing lens; it would be a hindrance,not a help. The Canon 100-400 + TC....huh???? That'd be an almost useless combo. That lens is bad enough without a TC.

 

[KmH]

....Also, i have yet to see any competition for this.....

Mainly because the only way to make it work is to shoot on speculation.

The money in youth/highschool sports is the T&I portraiture. (team & individual).

 

[bigtwinky]

You will have a lot to learn if you are thinking that sports photography is easy...or easier because you are capturing a moment rather than creating. Actually, if you want to be good, it is harder to capture the right moment, at the right time, the right angle, the right lens, the right setting, the right emotion....all in a split second because that moment is so quickly gone.

Even shooting at 8 fps and rapid firing off frames, you can miss the moment.

If you have control over the situation, you can set the light, pose the person and get your vision right before clicking.

People always think candid photos are easier because its every day stuff, you can just walk and shoot. But really, good candids are so freakin hard to get.

As for the lens, the Canon is far superior to the Sigma for fast action shooting.
The 100-400 will be useless when the light goes down. Unless you are shooting with a 1D level camera where you can compensate for the slowness of the lens with higher ISO, and even then.

You need to get a really fast shutter to freeze action. Motion blur is usually not wanted at all in an image, so you are shooting at 1/500 + in most games. Not so bad during the day, horrible at night with low level league games.

 

[gsgary]

So you think shooting sports is easy then, i'm afraid your in for a big shock.
The 100-400 is rubbish for sports, slow focus and will not isolate players from the background very well but would be good for wildlife fit a 1.4x and it will not auto focus unless you have a 1D. I shoot this sort of thing all summer and shoot every child and set up a print station where parents can veiw and buy, prints are in their hands in about 30 seconds using a dye sub printer
If you wanted to work for me you would have to be capable of taking shots like this every day day in day out

 

[Croissant Seven]

Action photography is a huge challenge. For every one of these I've shot... (and this one isnt' even that good, stupid orange fence!)...

I have a file folder full of these:

Seriously, like a 70:1 ratio of garbage-to-OK, usable shots. All I can say is, if you want to shoot kids soccer games, get your shutter actuator finger nice and stretched out and reddy farr akkshunn.

 

[gsgary]

You want minimum 75% keepers or you will spend most of your time sifting through the crap deleting

 

[Overread]

+1 to the above - sports, wildlife anything with action takes time and practice to get it right and to get a good keeper rating. You've got to learn not just to see and capture, but to predict where the action will be so that you're there and ready to take the shot (Eg in Gary's photo of the jumping horses he's close, low angle and using 50mm (unless EXIF is telling my a lie) which means here was there - waiting for that specific shot, not just chancing it).

Sadly all the above is not easily got and you only get it with a lot of repetition - a lot of experience and a lot of failed and duff shots along the way


On the equipment side my advice is to take your lens budget and forget the 100-400mm. Instead I would say go for a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 - yes that is a serious amount of cash for a single lens. I say this not just because is currently top of the range, for the 70-200mm f2.8 range you could easily use the original lens or even the non-IS version and still get pro grade results. However I say the M2 because you can put a 2*Teleconverter onto it and you've got a 140-400mm lens of very similar image quality as the 100-400mm - so it covers you if you have an interest in wildlife or simply want the 400mm reach - but it also gives you a stella 70-200mm lens for your sports work.

 

[gsgary]

Low angle i was flat on my back head on the coarse good job they were not to near to the rail

 

[SHaller]

Let me try to clarify things a little. I never said it was going to be easy, not by a long shot. I just dont think it will be as difficult as some other aspects of photography are to me. Also, Through out high school I worked with a local tv station covering about 25-30 high school sports games on camera . I am very familiar with covering sports, just not behind a dslr. When i mentioned portfolio, i wasn't referring about a large elaborate presentation, but about 10-15 nice photos to show local parents. Another thing is that I dont plan on making a long lasting business out of this, but just a way to make some extra money during the spring and summer.

 

[SHaller]

I think you have no idea of what this entails. If you think without having shot a single event one can shoot a "couple" of events and put together "a portfolio", well, you are sadly mistaken. Also, the Sigma 70-200 is know as a rather slow-focusing lens; it would be a hindrance,not a help. The Canon 100-400 + TC....huh???? That'd be an almost useless combo. That lens is bad enough without a TC.

I wasn't planing on using the 100-400 as a sports lens, but a walk around bird/wildlife lens. I have yet to hear anything bad about that lens until now. Sure, i hear a lot that its not the sharpest piece of glass, but is actually quite good considering the zoom range. And i've heard that this lens is pretty good with a canon 1.4 tc. Maybe not to a diehard professional, but I don't have thousands of dollars to throw into a bunch of primes.

 

[Overread]

Everything I've researched about the 100-400mm says that 1.4TC performance with it is - debatable. Auto focus is mostly gone (actually unless you tape the pins or use a 3rd party none-reporting one its gone by default) and even in good light it will hunt a lot. Further the image quality hit, when combined with the loss of AF leaves many who find that its ok in a pinch, but its not a combo they reach to often to do shots with.

I still think however that for sports and wildlife the more expensive, 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 +2*TC (M2 or M3 work well and M2 is cheaper) is a better bet than going for the sigma 70-200mm f2.8 and the canon 100-400mm - you get a far better 70-200mm lens for the match and a pretty much equal quality 140-400mm lens for wildlife work (it also does rather well with dragonflies)

ps if you need help/torment
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=838247
should convince you of the 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2 performance (most shots without the TC but some users have put in TC shots as well)