Beginner Choosing A Camera for Sports Photography

Brazo said:
Posts #9 or #13
Click to expand...

Problem there is one goes over budget, I think people missed the "below £500" part, and the other is a suggestion based off of a sale in classified - they won't always go so cheap.
 
Cagey75 said:
Problem there is one goes over budget, I think people missed the "below £500" part, and the other is a suggestion based off of a sale in classified - they won't always go so cheap.
Click to expand...
I think it’s easy enough to get a s/h lens and camera combo for under £500, whether that’s off here or the bay or elsewhere the price of dslr have been knocked by mirrorless.

Can even buy a brand new d5600 with 18-55 for £350 now, top that off with a s/h 70-300 and your good to go.
 
jonneymendoza said:
And on a gloomy rainy day?
Click to expand...
Like the ones we used to shoot with 400iso film pushed to 1600iso in microphen? That was about as good as it got untill tmax 3200 come out. I've shot hundreds of games from Div1 to 5 a side on ilford HP5 (400iso). Somehow we managed then.
 
swanseamale47 said:
Like the ones we used to shoot with 400iso film pushed to 1600iso in microphen? That was about as good as it got untill tmax 3200 come out. I've shot hundreds of games from Div1 to 5 a side on ilford HP5 (400iso). Somehow we managed then.
Click to expand...
Iso 1600 is fine on these entry level cameras but pushing further you will see lots of noise. Mind you. For instagram it should be fine.

The point is that a 85mm is very limited and the op is better off getting a zoom that goes to around 200mm.

I never mentioned fast glass mate. I f5.6 lens is fine.

If the op started to shoot under flod lights he may need faster glass.

And just because you "managed" back in the day doesnt mean the OP has to be limited to the same tech you used back then.

Tech moves in photography. sensors get better, lenses get better and overal bodies get better.

If the OP has options to have a camera and lens better than what you had all those years ago then why not? Some of the recommendations here have been brilliant
 
Last edited:
Under floodlights i was pushing up to 6400 on a FF sensor body as well

JackWalpoleCupFinalA9_pt2_-562.jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

A typical gloomy rainy day shooting at iso 1600 and shutter at 1/800

GrassRootsDay18 (2619 of 4532).jpg by Jon Richy, on Flickr

So Again my point is f5.6 is fine. under floodlights you may struggle and dont forget, the images above are from a FF sensor that has at least a stop or more in ISO performance. So a canon 4000d at iso 1600 would look worse than my camera at that same ISO.
 
Personally I’d push the £500 budget if necessary. But a Canon 7d or Nikon D7000 were great sports cameras, add a 70-200 f4 or a battered 2.8 and you’ve got ‘pro quality ’ from not too long ago.

The OP’s issue is thinking about a ‘sports camera’ for his budget when the real issue is a decent lens on a budget
 
Last edited:
To put things into perspective ... I shoot football matches and to replicate the kit i will be sat at pitchside with tomorrow would cost you £24 thousand punds or more.. To buy second hand ..bargain hunting you could replicate my kit for say £10k to £12 thousand.. but thats for well used gear...

So to be able to shoot a football match at less than £500 you have to expect to lower expectations in all areas... I started with a canon 10d and a sigma 70-200. I remember at the time thinkign this is it.. I will never need another setup as this is perfect haha..... You could replicate that kit now for less than £500 as per the links i posted earlier in the thread...

I do believe you need to start at a 70-200mm lens .. For social media needs you could use somehting better than the 10d link i posted and still be in budget and produce very acceptable 1200-1400 pixel wide pics....

Go second hand... start with a 70-200 :)
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
Iso 1600 is fine on these entry level cameras but pushing further you will see lots of noise. Mind you. For instagram it should be fine.

The point is that a 85mm is very limited and the op is better off getting a zoom that goes to around 200mm.

I never mentioned fast glass mate. I f5.6 lens is fine.

If the op started to shoot under flod lights he may need faster glass.

And just because you "managed" back in the day doesnt mean the OP has to be limited to the same tech you used back then.

Tech moves in photography. sensors get better, lenses get better and overal bodies get better.

If the OP has options to have a camera and lens better than what you had all those years ago then why not? Some of the recommendations here have been brilliant
Click to expand...
I never suggested he use the same set up I used then. I just pointed out we managed with 400 iso film, you dont "need" a Nikon D5, or Idx 2,, pretty much any modern entry level camera will produce great results at facebook, instagram size, evem at 3200 iso. I used a 750d and d3400 this year playing around, both turned in amazing results at 3200iso. Miles better than many few year old pro cameras.. As you say, tech has moved on....
 
swanseamale47 said:
I never suggested he use the same set up I used then. I just pointed out we managed with 400 iso film, you dont "need" a Nikon D5, or Idx 2,, pretty much any modern entry level camera will produce great results at facebook, instagram size, evem at 3200 iso. I used a 750d and d3400 this year playing around, both turned in amazing results at 3200iso. Miles better than many few year old pro cameras.. As you say, tech has moved on....
Click to expand...

Even the 'beginner' Nikon bodies are very good at handling high ISO, 1600 - 6400. The sensors are much the same in the D3*** series as the D7*** right? The main differences are in build quality, WR, evf/LCD and probably the processor. I shot with an old D90 for years and was never afraid to use ISO 3200 at the time, for shooting gigs. Even a D3300 as I suggested would kick the D90's butt on that front.
 
Last edited:
+1 for second hand 70-200 and body for close to budget. Plus practice :) not an easy subject by any means. Good luck!
 
IMHO the priority isn’t noise handling it’s AF ability, I’d much rather use a 7d with its ‘mushy’ noise than an entry level Nikon and kit lens that’ll shoot clean ISO6400 out of focus shots.

Where the world moves on.
And whilst I appreciate that awesome sports images can be shot on MF kit using trap focus, it was an imprecise science, and ‘great’ images were a rarity, I’d suggest @KIPAX takes home more pin sharp peak action images from one game now than Eammon McCabe could in a month in 1980.
 
Phil V said:
IMHO the priority isn’t noise handling it’s AF ability, I’d much rather use a 7d with its ‘mushy’ noise than an entry level Nikon and kit lens that’ll shoot clean ISO6400 out of focus shots.

Where the world moves on.
And whilst I appreciate that awesome sports images can be shot on MF kit using trap focus, it was an imprecise science, and ‘great’ images were a rarity, I’d suggest @KIPAX takes home more pin sharp peak action images from one game now than Eammon McCabe could in a month in 1980.
Click to expand...
Yes the most important thing is getting the shot and what gets the shot is what focal length you use and if its in focus.
 
KIPAX said:
Less than 400 quid for the same kit i started with :) and to be fair he only wants the pics for facebook so only needs to produce say 1400 pixels wide at the most.. 1200 probably do..


Canon 10d
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CANON-EO...y-Charger-DS6031/312770848426?epid=1640394434

Sigma 70-200
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Sigma-APO-DG-70-200MM-2-8-11-Macro-HSM-EX-Canon-Fit-Lens/153649548372
Click to expand...


Although that lens fits, the danger with the 10d is that it was released before the EF-s range of lenses, so you'll only be able to use if with EF lenses. Not a problem if you know that upfront, but a 20d (for example) would give a much broader choice of lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top