Will a better camera make a difference in lens focus speed?

[KatiePurple]

Hi-
I'm definitely replacing my old workhorse nikon d50. With my kids participating in indoor sports (basketball, volleyball) I need something with better low light/high ISO capabilities. I've been able to squeeze quite a bit out of that little camera but it's showing its age in other ways and I just want something better.

One annoyance with indoor situations is that my lens often takes too long to find its focus, causing me to miss shots (I've often compensated by deciding which player I will take a photo of, focusing on her, and then waiting for her to do something interesting ). Will a better camera help with this, or is it purely a lens issue? I generally use the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8.

Thanks!

 

[Designer]

Half of that is the camera and half the lens. Some cameras are faster than others, same for lenses.

I've heard that the Nikon D500 is fast to focus, and couple that with a fast-focusing lens, and you're set.

 

[weepete]

Better AF can definatley make a difference, a 70-200 f2.8 should be a good performer so I would imagine you would see a benifit from a newer body. I'm not super familiar with Nikon lenses though so I'm sure someone else will be able to confirm.

 

[wfooshee]

The D50 simply can't "see" as well to focus. I had one, but it's been almost 10 years since I moved away from it.

Something similarly placed in the modern Nikon lineup would be the D7000 line, currently D7500, but you could get a used D7200 (and maybe a refurb from Nikon) for a good price. The D5000 line is a possibility (currently D5600,) but the D7000 line has things they don't, like an in-body focus motor for the older lenses that require it, and the 7000 line is better with legacy lenses, as well, as they have the AI meter coupling ring.

I do recall noticing faster focus when I replaced the D50 with a D5000 with the same 70-300 ED VR lens.

 

[Designer]

The D50 simply can't "see" as well to focus. I had one, but it's been almost 10 years since I moved away from it.

Something similarly placed in the modern Nikon lineup would be the D7000 line, currently D7500, but you could get a used D7200 (and maybe a refurb from Nikon) for a good price. The D5000 line is a possibility (currently D5600,) but the D7000 line has things they don't, like an in-body focus motor for the older lenses that require it, and the 7000 line is better with legacy lenses, as well, as they have the AI meter coupling ring.

I would not recommend the D7500, it is just not up to the hype.

Disclaimer; I own a D7100, which I do recommend.

Having a focusing motor in the body does open up the possibility of using any of the older (and some really good) "D" lenses that require a motor in the body.

Anyway, my first recommendation is my best shot; the D500. Excellent for sports, wildlife, and journalism, where fast, accurate focusing is a requirement. I am not familiar with the focusing speed of your 70-200 f/2.8, so other posters can address that aspect of it.

 

[KatiePurple]

Thanks everyone! Good to know that the camera upgrade will help.

 

[Designer]

Thanks everyone! Good to know that the camera upgrade will help.

In case you have any questions about the D500:

Nikon D500 review | Digital Camera World

This review is somewhat misleading in that they compare the D500 (which has an APS-C- sized sensor) with the D5, which is a "full frame" sensor. Plus there is a significant cost difference, too.

Anyway, the D500 is known for its low-light performance, fast focusing, and smaller chassis, (for easier handling). If you can afford it, that's the one to get. You might consider a clean, lightly-used one, if you can find one.

 

[MSnowy]

I've had the D60 D300 D7100 D3s and now use a D500 for wildlife and sports. The D500 focuses faster then any of the others and focuses very good in low light. High iso performance is pretty good in bad lighting situations. I use it with the 70-200mm f2.8 vrii for hockey

This was a few weeks ago D500 w/ Nikon 200-400mm f/4 lens. Shot at 1/1000 sec, f4 iso 16,000 produced usable images

D500 Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vrii 1/1000 sec f2.8 iso 3200

 

[vintagesnaps]

A nice sharp lens is certainly a help with shooting sports/action especially in lower light. I've done sports, mostly hockey, and events; I'd suggest noticing where the light looks better and avoid dark corners, etc. (Of course in hockey it helps having overhead light reflected by the ice!) I focus manually, but I think it takes being ready and being able to adjust quickly (and I think a couple/a few seconds can be more time than you'd think to be able to adjust framing or focus).

Go early, walk around and figure out different vantage points. A lot of shooting sports is anticipating the action rather than trying to chase the action with your lens. Your idea of focusing on one player til action comes her way isn't a bad idea, I'd often get focused on the net and wait for the action to skate into my viewfinder.

If your camera is showing its age anyway, it could probably be a help to get a new camera. Along with that, whatever camera you use, keep practicing and learning - it takes a lot of practice.

 

[Derrel]

I think that you would get noticeably faster autofocusing from a higher-end body. The Nikon D50 is now showing its age, and I think that a D7100 or D7200 or D500 or another mid-level to.high-end camera would focus faster with your 70-200 zoom. The D50 was an entry-level camera well known for its good color and Punchy look straight out of camera, and as such it was a really pretty good shooter, but like the D40, it was always known as a camera with a rather pedestrian and low-level autofocusing system.

There has been a tremendous advance in low light and high ISO performance since the D50 was current. Since 2007 and since 2012 there have been some major advances in digital single-lens reflex sensor technology coming in today as you can see from the above Sports Photography has benefited tremendously from ISO levels that were simply unimaginable a decade ago.

 

[ac12]

Both lens and body, but also the sport and the camera setting.

As other have said, some cameras focus better and faster.
New cameras have a higher High ISO, which helps tremendously with sports.

A FASTER lens, give more light to the camera's autofocus system. That extra light, will help make the camera focus faster and more accurately.

If the gym is not well lit, which many school gyms are not, the camera may struggle to focus.

I shoot volleyball at my high school with a 35/1.8 and 50/1.8 lens, and basketball with the 35/1.8 lens. I got these lenses specifically to deal with the low light level in the gym. I shoot at ISO 3200, 1/800 sec, f/2.
The faster lens also helps the cameras autofocus to focus easier and faster.
I shoot on the floor or from the first row of the bleachers. So I am close to the players, and I don't need a long lens.

The sport is also an issue.
Very common for me in volleyball is to have to QUICKLY shift from player-1 to player-2. When I shoot a burst, odds are that frame 1 will be out of focus, because the lens is still focusing on player-2 when the shutter fires. Then from frame 2 and on, player-2 is in focus. The greater the distance change from player-1 to player-2, the more likely that frame 1 will be out of focus.

As you become more familiar with the sport, you will be able to predict where the ball will go, and be able to aim the camera at that player just a little bit faster, so that the autofocus has a little bit more time to get the lens focused.

This year is my third year shooting volleyball, and I am finding it not as difficult as it was in prior years. In many cases, I am able to predict who will get the ball, and start moving my camera to that player, just a little bit faster than I used to.​

The camera setting issue is, what exposure mode and autofocus setting you have the camera set up to use.
For most high school sports, I use

• One of the PSAM modes, in my case usually M. I never use Auto.
  • PSAM lets ME choose what to focus on.
  • Auto uses "closest subject" logic. This problem is discussed below.

• The problem in team sports is that there will likely be other players near your daughter. The camera is not smart enough to know who your daughter is, vs. the other players.

• "single point" autofocus allows ME to choose exactly who to focus on. So I can select a specific player to focus on.
  
• Area/zone autofocus usually uses "closest subject" logic. This is where the camera will find the closest subject within the focus area, and focus on that subject. And in a multi-player sport, odds are it won't be your daughter.
  • Example, in volleyball, if I am trying to shoot the forward on the far side of the court, there are two players between me and that player. In area autofocus, the camera will focus on the closest of those two players.
  • Area autofocus means that the camera has to spend time determining which is the closest subject, before it can even begin to start focusing the lens. It is a small amount of time, but it cuts into the little time you have, when you switch subjects quickly.
• But, by shooting in single point autofocus, this then places ALL the responsibility to track the subject on YOU.

 

[Solarflare]

Nikon has, surprise surprise, of course made multiple 70-200mm f2.8 over the years, since thats obviously a workhorse lens. There is currently the VR1, the VR2, and the E VR FL. The later being horrendously expensive, which is why I would recomment getting the much cheaper but equally good Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 VC "G2" instead. The G2 part is important.

For the task given I would recomment ideally getting a D500 and the Topaz(?) noise reduction software. If thats still not good enough then really not many options remain.

I dont get why this thread belongs into the beginner forum. Really should be in the Nikon forum, or the Nikon lenses subforum.

For sports you really shouldnt use single point as the previous poster suggested, but one of the dynamic modes so the camera follows the subject even if it moves around in the frame.

 

[wfooshee]

Something similarly placed in the modern Nikon lineup would be the D7000 line, currently D7500, but you could get a used D7200 (and maybe a refurb from Nikon) for a good price.

I would not recommend the D7500, it is just not up to the hype.

Disclaimer; I own a D7100, which I do recommend.

When I got my D7200, I rejected the D7500 mostly for having only one memory card slot. I wanted a D500, as someone else recommended above, but that's out of my price range. The 7200 was a significant upgrade from the D7000 I was using at the time (and still have.)

 

[Strodav]

I agree with most of the replies. A very good sports setup is a D500 with a 70-200mm f/2.8. The AF system is amazing compared to my D7200. The 3D AF mode is especially useful for sports. My only complaint is that you want to keep your subject close to center of the viewfinder as AF does not work as well at the outer edges of the frame. The D500 has a frame rate of 10fps and a fairly large buffer, so you won't miss any of the action as long as you use a faster XQD mem card. My typical setup is Auto ISO between 100 and 1600, manual mode 1/800 sec, f/4, 3D AF sometimes spot, matrix metering.

 

[Designer]

When I got my D7200, I rejected the D7500 mostly for having only one memory card slot.

With all the other shortcomings of the D7500 (several besides the one card slot) someone suggested that Nikon misnamed it. Instead of the D7500, which implies that it is part of the D7xxx series with similar attributes, they should have named it the D5700, as it more closely aligns with the D5xxx series cameras.