PDA

View Full Version : Sports Photography




Glenn Wolsey
Jan 9, 2006, 11:55 PM
I really want to get into sports photography, but don't know what would be a suitable camera to purchase? I want to use it with Aperture, or Lightroom software.

The sports will be cricket (like baseball), and rugby. I would also like it for aviation photography.

What do you think would be best for a 13 year old on a medium budget? (Medium being $200-550)



puckhead193
Jan 9, 2006, 11:58 PM
I really want to get into sports photography, but don't know what would be a suitable camera to purchase? I want to use it with Aperture, or Lightroom software.

The sports will be cricket (like baseball), and rugby. I would also like it for aviation photography.

What do you think would be best for a 13 year old on a medium budget? (Medium being $200-550)
well your budget doesn't give much room ;)
But something with a big zoom like a nikon coolpics 8800 although it has slow auto focusing...
Your other bed would be a canon rebel either the new or the old...

bousozoku
Jan 10, 2006, 12:22 AM
I think you're out of luck unless you can buy a used 35mm and a film scanner. Digital equipment good enough to do the job is still too much although you might be able to find an used Olympus E-20 and make it work. It's a decent, fast 5 MP camera and you don't have to worry about dust since it's sealed.

Glenn Wolsey
Jan 10, 2006, 12:27 AM
Okay then, what do you think would be the best reasonably priced camera for the job?

arogge
Jan 10, 2006, 03:30 AM
You need a long lens and a camera that does not have a long shutter lag. Point-and-shoot cameras such as the Nikon 8800 and the Canon S2 are less expensive than dSLRs, and a long lens is included with these units. The S2 price tag is about $800 with an SD card. If you want a dSLR, the price tags start at $1200 for the body and $300 for a zoom lens. A fast lens for low-light sports quickly pushes the price over $2000. Buying used equipment can lower the entry price. Do you have a local camera shop?

Abstract
Jan 10, 2006, 06:25 AM
If you want a dSLR, the price tags start at $1200 for the body and $300 for a zoom lens.

It's not THAT expensive. Look for a deal on the Nikon D50 if you're buying new. I've heard of people getting it for $599, but then you'd have to buy a lense.



Buying used equipment can lower the entry price. Do you have a local camera shop?

Yeah, I'd say either buy a new or used Nikon D70 (not the newer D70s), new or used Canon 300D/Rebel (but not the newer "350D/Rebel XT"), or a new Nikon D50. Hell, get a used Nikon D50 if you can find such a thing. Check eBay, and check local camera shops.

I don't think the autofocus in a point-and-shoot is fast enough for sports photography. When you press the shutter button at the top, it would take a while before it actually took the photo, especially if the target is moving.

You'd also need a nice zoom, and even if you get a P&S with a good zoom, it still won't be fast enough, so I say bite the bullet and get yourself a used digital SLR.

bgd
Jan 10, 2006, 07:20 AM
An SLR with a couple of telephoto/zoom lenses gives you the flexibility you need for sports photography. In the digital world that combination is going to be expensive. So while funds are low you could always spend more on lenses and get a 2nd hand film SLR (for very little) to start with (I'm biased towards the Canon EOS range). Images can be scanned or loaded onto a cd by any camera shop. Change to a digital body when funds permit, that at least allows you to keep your lenses.

Not the most convenient way of doing things but better than spending all your dosh on a camera that won't give you results you are happy with.

arogge
Jan 10, 2006, 11:36 AM
It's not THAT expensive.

It is when you buy with New Zealand currency. ;)

arogge
Jan 10, 2006, 10:02 PM
Have you purchased Apple's Aperture software? With a small budget, you should not buy unnecessary software at the expense of buying a good camera and lens.

Temeculamom
Jan 11, 2006, 12:57 PM
You might consider the Kodak DX7590. I've had several friends who really love this camera. It has 10x optical zoom and 5mp, and you can "buy it now" on ebay for $275.00.

It is NOT going to be perfect, but I think it would be great for your budget. You can read reviews of it all over the place. Cnet has one listing pros and cons-and the responses liked it better than their review.

Good luck and have fun with it. I have a friend who is a professional photographer, and he says you can get art from any camera (within reason). It's the photographer who makes the biggest difference.

ChrisA
Jan 12, 2006, 03:41 PM
I really want to get into sports photography, but don't know what would be a suitable camera to purchase? I want to use it with Aperture, or Lightroom software.

The sports will be cricket (like baseball), and rugby. I would also like it for aviation photography.

What do you think would be best for a 13 year old on a medium budget? (Medium being $200-550)

For your use you __absolutly__ need an SLR. Any of the point and shoot cameras will have what they call "shutter lag". That's where you push the shuter releae and it takes some time (from 0.25 to 2 seconds) before the shutter trips. This is not an issue in many takes of photography, say comercial product shots or family snapshots but you specifically said "sports" and in sports THE key element is catching the EXACT moment. tenths of seconds to late (or to early) is a missed shot. You will also need a lens that is fast and long. an 80-200 f/2.8 (note the constant f-ratio) is a common sports lens.

When I was 13 in the early 1970's I had the same interrests and budget and was able to get a pretty good system. I bough a Minolta SRT100 and shot black and white film. You can buy film in 100ft lenghts (one exposure takes 1.5 inches, do the math) The equipment needed to process film and make contact sheets is cheap. In sports photography you only print maybe one in 20 shots. In today's world I assume everyone would scan negitives and print on inkjets.

You can do professional quality work with a used 35mm SLR. Scan the negs into iPhoto, have the prints made by some Internet based service. The same money applied to a new digital camera will not get get a DSRL. for $500 you'd be limited to a small point and shoot. A minimal DSRL setup with a fast zoom lens is going to set you back over $2K. But profesional quality used film based system is right in the center of you budget range.

Buy a used 35mm SRL but be sure and get one where you can use the lenses you buy on a digital SRL later. Canon makes this easy. An ond Canon film body can be had for $100 and the EOS system lenses will fit a digital body when you can aford one.

I want to use it with Aperture, or Lightroom software.
..... for a 13 year old on a medium budget? (Medium being $200-550)

The software is to expensive. Not only that but it is targeted at allowing a profesional for whom "time is money" to save a few hours in post production, The above software is called "workflow" because it speeds up workflow. If you are 13 you likely don't have the time pressures of a professional.

Also with such a small budget you should look at "gimp" www.gimp.org
Gimp is an image editor with a featur set between PS elements and CS
but the big thing is that it si free, no cost. I actually prefer Gimp's user
interface to PS. It takes time to learn but I think Gimp is cleaner and
it is certainly faster than PS.

Save you money for "good glass" it's the lens that takes the picture. Sports
photographers typically spend much more on lenses then on cameras and
for good reason: it's the lens that takes the picture.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 13, 2006, 10:30 PM
For your use you __absolutly__ need an SLR. Any of the point and shoot cameras will have what they call "shutter lag". That's where you push the shuter releae and it takes some time (from 0.25 to 2 seconds) before the shutter trips. This is not an issue in many takes of photography, say comercial product shots or family snapshots but you specifically said "sports" and in sports THE key element is catching the EXACT moment. tenths of seconds to late (or to early) is a missed shot. You will also need a lens that is fast and long. an 80-200 f/2.8 (note the constant f-ratio) is a common sports lens.

When I was 13 in the early 1970's I had the same interrests and budget and was able to get a pretty good system. I bough a Minolta SRT100 and shot black and white film. You can buy film in 100ft lenghts (one exposure takes 1.5 inches, do the math) The equipment needed to process film and make contact sheets is cheap. In sports photography you only print maybe one in 20 shots. In today's world I assume everyone would scan negitives and print on inkjets.

You can do professional quality work with a used 35mm SLR. Scan the negs into iPhoto, have the prints made by some Internet based service. The same money applied to a new digital camera will not get get a DSRL. for $500 you'd be limited to a small point and shoot. A minimal DSRL setup with a fast zoom lens is going to set you back over $2K. But profesional quality used film based system is right in the center of you budget range.

Buy a used 35mm SRL but be sure and get one where you can use the lenses you buy on a digital SRL later. Canon makes this easy. An ond Canon film body can be had for $100 and the EOS system lenses will fit a digital body when you can aford one.

Great advice.

For the budget mentioned, 35mm will be the way to go for the short term. Buying used 35mm (and medium format for those not in to sports) can be a great bargain as many are moving to digital now. And given the announcement from Nikon about most production on 35mm ending, there are many people looking to unload their film cameras now - thinking that prices will get lower later.

I would not limit myself to Canon though. Any 35mm camera with AF lenses would be great to start with. Nikon and Canon may provide a greater selection of "long term" lens selections for the future.

In regards to programs. If he were to do film for a start, iPhoto and having a CD made from his shoots would be a good short term solution. Many labs offer affordable processing and burning to a CD (at least here in the US).

I am wondering what is meant by aviation photography. If it is "plane spotting" most any camera will do. For going up in an aircraft, the popular opinion is for VR or IS technology.

I will go on a rant here though. Many are used to what technology has given us. 2 to 8+ frames a second. I am old enough to remember when getting 3fps was "high end" (save, for those lucky few with major $ to spend).

There was time in my short life (I am 47), that we were awed by the images captured because of the eye and skill of the photographer. For he did not have the capability of shooting 8fps.

Henri Cartier-Bresson comes to mind, though not a sports photographer. His photography has come to define the "decisive moment". He did shooting frame by frame.

In the end, don't worry about the tech. Focus on the skill....

Wes Jordan
Jan 20, 2006, 10:23 PM
You might consider the Kodak DX7590. I've had several friends who really love this camera. It has 10x optical zoom and 5mp, and you can "buy it now" on ebay for $275.00.

It is NOT going to be perfect, but I think it would be great for your budget. You can read reviews of it all over the place. Cnet has one listing pros and cons-and the responses liked it better than their review.

Good luck and have fun with it. I have a friend who is a professional photographer, and he says you can get art from any camera (within reason). It's the photographer who makes the biggest difference.

EWWW...No. I am a photo editor for a yearbook and I see the quality of these Kodak cameras everyday. NO creative control. For $550, I would buy a Panasonic FZ-5. Its a great camera with a great feature set. Full manual available. Still not going to be exactly what you need. Is the shooting during the day?

I own a Panasonic FZ-30, and although it is not good in low light, it is FAST. The statement that you have to have an SLR to have little lag is untrue. The only time it is slow is at night or in very low light.

Glenn Wolsey
Jan 21, 2006, 02:01 AM
I have decided to save up and take your advice to get a good camera.

I'm looking at a camera which is around the $1,000 mark, has a 300+ mm zoom, (Or 12x Optical), and is 9MP.

Thoughts?

Counterfit
Jan 21, 2006, 03:16 AM
I have decided to save up and take your advice to get a good camera.

I'm looking at a camera which is around the $1,000 mark, has a 300+ mm zoom, (Or 12x Optical), and is 9MP.

Thoughts?
I going to parrot what others have said and recommend an SLR (film or digital). If you're going to spend $1k on a camera, make sure you can change the lens. $420 will get you a Canon EOS 7N with a 28-105 f/4-5.6 USM lens from B&H. Certainly the lens isn't ideal for sports, as it's not long enough or fast enough, but the body should be more than adequate for you for now, and since it's an SLR, you can easily (not necessarily cheaply) upgrade the lens. heck, if I had the money, I could put Canon's 1200mm L uber-lens on my Rebel 2000 (and the pictures wouldn't really look any different from any other Canon 35mm camera.)

bousozoku
Jan 21, 2006, 03:28 AM
I have decided to save up and take your advice to get a good camera.

I'm looking at a camera which is around the $1,000 mark, has a 300+ mm zoom, (Or 12x Optical), and is 9MP.

Thoughts?

I'll let you know when I can be serious. :eek:

Such a thing will cost you more than what you're spending. I could suggest an Olympus E-500 (8 MP) and the 50-200 mm zoom (effective 100-400 mm in 35 mm terms) but here, that's U.S. $599 for the body and $999 for the lens. You could save a little money by going with a couple of lenses which cover a smaller range but the truth is, quality glass costs a lot of money.

-hh
Jan 21, 2006, 07:50 AM
I going to parrot what others have said and recommend an SLR (film or digital). If you're going to spend $1k on a camera, make sure you can change the lens. $420 will get you a Canon EOS 7N with a 28-105 f/4-5.6 USM lens from B&H. Certainly the lens isn't ideal for sports, as it's not long enough or fast enough, but the body should be more than adequate for you for now, and since it's an SLR, you can easily (not necessarily cheaply) upgrade the lens.


For a $1000 budget, I might be inclined to go to B&H and pick up a good $500 telephoto (I'm not sure offhand how much the latest version of the 70-300 IS is selling for), and another $500 for a good, but used (8+) EOS 3, since the EOS 3 is one of the few affordable cameras that will autofocus at f/8 (minimum aperature...such as when putting a 2x teleextender on an f/4 telephoto).


-hh

whocares
Jan 21, 2006, 08:21 AM
I have decided to save up and take your advice to get a good camera.

I'm looking at a camera which is around the $1,000 mark, has a 300+ mm zoom, (Or 12x Optical), and is 9MP.

Thoughts?

Also remember that a P&S 9MP won't look as good as a 9MP DSLR, and not even as good as a 6-7MP DSLR. This is because the sensor on the P&S is so ridiculously small (making it more noisy).

My advice is to get a deal on a new D50 (or equivalent Canon). Buying digital second hand is usually a rip-off. The extra money you'll spend on DLSR over a film SLR you can make up by using cheaper lenses. Indeed, you can get away with much slower lenses (cheaper!) on digital; with film you would be needing *at least* an 80-200 f2.8 to shoot sports...

For 1,000 USD, my suggestion is: Nikon D50 + some lenses. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=381588&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation). The lenses are good quality for their price and cover a nice range of focal length. You'll even have some cash left over to buy some cards and a card-reader :)

ejb190
Jan 21, 2006, 08:54 AM
My advice is going to be a bit different then everyone else's.

Get yourself a camera you can afford right now. Then get your body out and USE IT! I have seen people with high dollar camera equipment that still can't take a snapshot to save their lives. And I know a couple of professional photographers who frequently use "point and shoot" cameras to get shots when their big SLR's would just get in the way - and get very usable shots. Heck, I used to shoot basketball with a 35mm point and shoot for a newspaper! In otherwords, work on becoming a better photographer now and getting a better camera later.

As you shoot more you will get a better feel as to what you need from a camera. I wouldn't expect the camera you buy today to be your last camera. But you will learn what you need from your next camera.

If you get something like Nikon, keep in mind that your old lenses have a good chance of working on your new camera body when you upgrade in a few years.

Lau
Jan 21, 2006, 09:05 AM
Ok, I'm going to go the other way. If I were you I would buy a used film SLR on eBay or from a local camera shop. I got a used, fully manual SLR Pentax for 50 (from the 70s), so I'm sure you could get one for less than $100. Learn on that, learn to focus manually quickly, learn to change the exposure and shutter speed manually under pressure, and learn to take great photos. If you can take good photos on a manual SLR, you're a good photographer.

Whilst you're doing that, save up for a badass digital SLR. If, after using the manual film one you still want it, and you've mastered the basics, you'll be all set for taking amazing photos with the digital.

Clix Pix
Jan 21, 2006, 09:13 AM
I have decided to save up and take your advice to get a good camera.

I'm looking at a camera which is around the $1,000 mark, has a 300+ mm zoom, (Or 12x Optical), and is 9MP.

Thoughts?

If it's a point-and-shoot, you would be better off putting that same money into a DSLR and interchangeable lenses. One thing to consider: the lens you mention is 12x Optical (300+mm)....that's all well and good, but how fast is that lens? By this I mean how will it perform in low-light conditions? If it is variable, as many zoom telephoto lenses are, it could have a range running from f/3.5 - f/5.6 or thereabouts, the f/5.6 coming in at the tele end of the range so that you're not going to have much luck with catching the "decisive moment" in a sports activity. Does that 300+ optical zoom lens have Image Stabilization (IS) or Vibration Reduction (VR)? With a long lens you really need that for hand-holding shots under low-light conditions. Also, usually with a P&S you aren't going to have much of a choice when it comes to the ISO range. Using flash in most sport situations doesn't work out too well when you're at a remove from the actual activity, therefore you'll need to have a camera and lens which can capture the action even when the lighting is not optimal. Most P&S cameras are just not up to this job.

Although the number of megapixels -- the camera you cited has 9 -- may sound really exciting, that should not be a deciding factor in your choice of cameras unless you are planning to print out huge posters or think that you'll have to crop heavily on most of your shots. A camera with 5 or 6 MP has quite sufficient resolution. Don't get caught up in the misleading allure of a high number of megapixels and a long zoom range. Take a close look at the other features of the camera and the lens. In the end, good results are more likely to come because of those features rather than the number of megapixels or a super-long zoom range.

You will have noticed that people in this thread are urging you to consider a DSLR (or a film SLR) as opposed to a P&S. That is for good reason: you'll learn a lot more and be able to produce more satisfying images in the long run. Prices are coming down on DSLRs, especially on discontinued models such as the D70, and quite often you can pick up gently-used lenses for significantly less than getting one brand-new. Prices are pretty reasonable on the new models, too, such as Nikon's D50 and Canon's newest version of their popular Digital Rebel. With a DSLR, you will definitely have so much more flexibility than you would with a P&S, even one of the so-called "bridge" cameras.

I agree with ejb 190: whatever camera it is that you choose, the important thing is to get out there and USE it!

OTB

whocares
Jan 21, 2006, 09:36 AM
Ok, I'm going to go the other way. If I were you I would buy a used film SLR on eBay or from a local camera shop. I got a used, fully manual SLR Pentax for 50 (from the 70s), so I'm sure you could get one for less than $100. Learn on that, learn to focus manually quickly, learn to change the exposure and shutter speed manually under pressure, and learn to take great photos. If you can take good photos on a manual SLR, you're a good photographer.

Whilst you're doing that, save up for a badass digital SLR. If, after using the manual film one you still want it, and you've mastered the basics, you'll be all set for taking amazing photos with the digital.

I think this is the best advice so far :cool: :cool:

Wes Jordan
Jan 21, 2006, 06:23 PM
I think this is the best advice so far :cool: :cool:

You wouldn't cut a field with a pair of sissors. You have to have the right tools to accomplish what you want to do.

bousozoku
Jan 21, 2006, 06:50 PM
You wouldn't cut a field with a pair of sissors. You have to have the right tools to accomplish what you want to do.

The Pentax K1000 wasn't a bad camera and as long as it's still functioning, it would be fine, especially for what the original poster wants. His price and needs are too far apart to get with digital equipment right now.

Besides, he'd be better off avoiding the 35mm-digital compromise by buying something where the lenses don't work on a digital body and reconciling himself to a clean cut off.

Chip NoVaMac
Jan 21, 2006, 06:52 PM
I have decided to save up and take your advice to get a good camera.

I'm looking at a camera which is around the $1,000 mark, has a 300+ mm zoom, (Or 12x Optical), and is 9MP.

Thoughts?

Well, not sure why you would need or want 9mp, over lets say a 6mp digital camera. If you go with a DSLR, with the right handling you can get great 24x36" prints.

As to the 300mm focal length. You don't say whether you are talking about a true 300mm, which would be about a 450mm on the Nikon D50 lets say, or the equivalent to 300mm in 35mm field of view.

If it is the later, then you are in luck. You can get a Nikon D50 with a Tamron 18-200 zoom for $999 (at least at the shop I work at - price subject to change, but only maybe by a $50 increase).

Buying digital second hand is usually a rip-off.

Why is it a "rip-off'? Some good values out there used.

Counterfit
Jan 21, 2006, 09:16 PM
As to the 300mm focal length. You don't say whether you are talking about a true 300mm, which would be about a 450mm on the Nikon D50 lets say, or the equivalent to 300mm in 35mm field of view.
Ah, that's a good distinction to make. Focal length means different things to different formats. It's usually in the telephoto range (even if it's not a "true" telephoto lens) for 35mm, but in the short telephoto range for 6x#, and probably a normal lens (equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera) for 4"x5" large format. The important things to look at are field of view, and magnifying power, (but mostly field of view).

Side note, I just used my Minolta today, with the 200mm lens, and my father's 3x ( :eek: ) teleconverter. 1/8@f/11 (effective, the lens was set to f/3.5, i think I did the math right) on ISO 400 film. Thankfully I used a tripod and it has mirror lockup. :D