Looking for camera for sports photography

[Simgar988]

My dad is a coach for highschool basketball, track, etc and has always taken photos with a basic digital camera. He's looking to upgrade to a camera that is more "professional" after spending a weekend with my uncles camera.

He has no idea what to get so he left it up to me, who also hasno idea what to get. He is interested in being able to take many photos in rapid succession, easy use and a good lens so he can capture photos without having to run across the infield during a track meet.

Price range is under 1000$ definitely, but the cheaper the better. He is very frugal

 

[MotleyGrrl]

CoolPix P100 by Nikon is pretty cheap, has a great zoom, has a great sports mode and is pretty compact. He won't have to worry about changing lenses and it retails for about $400. If you look around though, you can get it for close to $300.
I have one and love it for concerts. It takes 25 shots at once so you'll always have a clear picture.

 

[Abstract]

Price range is under 1000$ definitely....

Uh oh.....

 

[advres]

My dad is a coach for highschool basketball, track, etc and has always taken photos with a basic digital camera. He's looking to upgrade to a camera that is more "professional" after spending a weekend with my uncles camera.

He has no idea what to get so he left it up to me, who also hasno idea what to get. He is interested in being able to take many photos in rapid succession, easy use and a good lens so he can capture photos without having to run across the infield during a track meet.

Price range is under 1000$ definitely, but the cheaper the better. He is very frugal

Well a "good lens" is going to exhaust his budget.

 

[Jaro65]

Well a "good lens" is going to exhaust his budget.

Indeed, and very easily. An alternative in your price range would be to consider a Canon T2i. I'm not sure if the kit lens(es) would be what you're looking for, but your budget is extremely tight.

 

[Matty-p]

Ok I personly recommend a 450d body from eBay a 500 or 550 if you can afford these cameras wil guve you 3-4 fps wich means 3 or 4 photos each second in "rapid sucsesion " so 10 secs in this mode will give you 35 photos and a ef 75-300 f4-5.6 this set up may cost about 600 dollars (400 for the 450d body and 200 for th lens)and will give you plenty of reach 35mm equiv of 480 mm ! You will get relatively good photos from this set up good enough to blow up to about a3 or maybe even a2

Ps don't forget those fast sd cards get two class 4 or prefrebly class 6 4 or 8 gb about 10 -20 dollars each

Opt 2 (more expensive but still in budget)
A 450 body and then a 70-200 f4l lens this setup will be around 1000 dollars

 

[iBookG4user]

Hmm, I'd suggest that you take a look at getting a used Canon EOS 20D and a used Sigma 70-200mm ƒ/2.8 HSM. Take a look at fredmiranda.com for a good place to buy used.

 

[Matty-p]

Hmm, I'd suggest that you take a look at getting a used Canon EOS 20D .

Yea good suggestion but the 20d only has a 1.5 fps advantage over a 450d but will have a far higher shutter count because it is a semi pro camera and has a faster fps . Also it is far hevier than the 450d has a smaller scren and only 8mp compared to 12 of the 450d but he may find ergonomics and monochrome screen usefull

 

[iBookG4user]

Yea good suggestion but the 20d only has a 1.5 fps advantage over a 450d but will have a far higher shutter count because it is a semi pro camera and has a faster fps . Also it is far hevier than the 450d has a smaller scren and only 8mp compared to 12 of the 450d but he may find ergonomics and monochrome screen usefull

Only 1.5 fps? That's actually a rather substantial difference. The smaller screen is easy to deal with (Coming from someone who owns a 300D with the same sized screen), sure it's small but it's perfectly functional. Megapixels are irrelevant unless the OP's father plans to print large, if they don't, 8MP is perfectly fine. Personally I find the weight to be a pro rather than a con, my biggest complaint about my 300D is that it is too light.

 

[Matty-p]

Only 1.5 fps? That's actually a rather substantial difference. The smaller screen is easy to deal with (Coming from someone who owns a 300D with the same sized screen), sure it's small but it's perfectly functional. Megapixels are irrelevant unless the OP's father plans to print large, if they don't, 8MP is perfectly fine. Personally I find the weight to be a pro rather than a con, my biggest complaint about my 300D is that it is too light.

Yea but he may not need the 1.5fps I have a 350d yea the screens fine and I'd prefer a small LCD and a monochrome screen rather than just one big LCD but my only complaint about the small screen is that when out in the field (literally in this mans case) He will want to show a picture to a friend or one of his class and you can't do that very well with the screen of 20d yea but he may not like exta size and weight to carry around or hold while shooting and I did state that he'd find ergonomics better . Also I just thought he may want the extra mp to print big for the walls of either his hiuse or his school ( our school is full of a2 print outs on awesome printers of pics from a 300d and you can really tell the difference when you comare them to the a2 prints on the same printer of photos taken on our new 450ds our school just got

Its all mainly personal preferance and I was just trying to look at it from his pov but you're probl right

Sorry for spelling done from iphone

 

[Abstract]

Your only hope is a used Nikon D40 and an abused, scuffed-up, but fully functional Sigma 70-200 mm f/2.8. Alternatively, get a used 105 mm macro lens, or even a used Sigma 150 mm f/2.8 macro lens, and hope the slightly slower focusing speed is adequate. I think it would be for track and field, where he's most likely going to be viewing athletes from quite far away.

 

[advres]

Indeed, and very easily. An alternative in your price range would be to consider a Canon T2i. I'm not sure if the kit lens(es) would be what you're looking for, but your budget is extremely tight.

The kit lens that comes on the t2i (I have one) blows. I mean it could be OK but seriously I took it off immediately and got a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. That setup is tight, but the lens was $1040.

Another problem with the t2i is the slow RAW burst speed. If he wants to shoot RAW he isn't going to get a very good burst for sequenced action shots. I have found that however long the shutter is open for, that is how long the raw takes to process with that camera. I was doing long exposure night shots and the processing of the raw would literally take 30 seconds before the camera could be used again. Of course, this isn't going to be an issue in bright light shooting with a fast shutter for sports but the burst is what will hurt him there.

And I hate to talk bad about the camera because i love it. Unfortunately I just don't think it is ideal for what he wants to do.

 

[Jaro65]

And I hate to talk bad about the camera because i love it. Unfortunately I just don't think it is ideal for what he wants to do.

Neither is the budget.

You raised some good points though. I didn't realize that T2i is as slow for RAW processing as you describe. Still, the OP's dad is unlikely to shoot RAW now and so perhaps this may not be that great of a concern. The T2i does have a great sensor and it offers an outstanding high ISO performance (given the price). This may be especially useful for indoor events where a high ISO performance is desirable. An extra exposure stop or two you can get out of your sensor may allow you to go with a slower (and less expensive) lens.

 

[renewed]

I think the problem here is many of y'all seem to be very experienced or would like to see yourselves as very experienced photographers. You have to understand the context. His dad is a coach, so I'm assuming wants action shots for school websites, flyers, and maybe to point out positions of ones body parts to help coach for running, basketball etc...

He is upgrading from what sounds like a point and shoot camera. $1,000 seems more than adequate to fit his needs.

Canon Rebel XS Bundle

Seems sufficient to me. Camera has great reviews and the lens has good range and is telephoto. All you need.

 

[Simgar988]

thanks guys, I really appreciate the comments. Each and everyone is very helpful.

Renewed makes a very good point. That is exactly what he wants it to be used for. He's no pro, just a sports enthusiast who is looking for a better way to record events, memories, etc.

please keep this in mind

 

[OutThere]

I think the problem here is many of y'all seem to be very experienced or would like to see yourselves as very experienced photographers. You have to understand the context. His dad is a coach, so I'm assuming wants action shots for school websites, flyers, and maybe to point out positions of ones body parts to help coach for running, basketball etc...

He is upgrading from what sounds like a point and shoot camera. $1,000 seems more than adequate to fit his needs.

Canon Rebel XS Bundle

Seems sufficient to me. Camera has great reviews and the lens has good range and is telephoto. All you need.

That's the perfect setup to get started with a DSLR, in my opinion.

You'll find yourself getting frustrated and having trouble getting high speed zoomed action shots with the f/5.6 lens, particularly of basketball, hockey or night games, but you can always upgrade later. New 70-200 f/2.8 lenses alone are generally more expensive than that entire bundle.

 

[Matty-p]

I think the problem here is many of y'all seem to be very experienced or would like to see yourselves as very experienced photographers. You have to understand the context. His dad is a coach, so I'm assuming wants action shots for school websites, flyers, and maybe to point out positions of ones body parts to help coach for running, basketball etc...

He is upgrading from what sounds like a point and shoot camera. $1,000 seems more than adequate to fit his needs.

Canon Rebel XS Bundle

Seems sufficient to me. Camera has great reviews and the lens has good range and is telephoto. All you need.

I absoutly agree with you seems like a ok deal considering brand new but if your dad is willin to buy second hand he could get a better camera 450d is better than 1000d because 450d has bigger screen more megapixes more af points and slightly faster fps ECt for 150 dollars less wich may be a good way of saving cash considering you say he is frugal ! Like I suggested in my previos post

Ok I personly recommend a 450d body from eBay these cameras wil guve you 3-4 fps wich means 3 or 4 photos each second in "rapid sucsesion " so 10 secs in this mode will give you 35 photos and a ef 75-300 f4-5.6 this set up may cost about 600 dollars (400 for the 450d body and 200 for th lens)and will give you plenty of reach 35mm equiv of 480 mm ! You will get relatively good photos from this set up good enough to blow up to about a3 or maybe even a2

Ps don't forget those fast sd cards get two class 4 or prefrebly class 6 4 or 8 gb about 10 -20 dollars each

 

[Abstract]

The kit lens that comes on the t2i (I have one) blows. I mean it could be OK but seriously I took it off immediately and got a 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM. That setup is tight, but the lens was $1040.

It doesn't have a large aperture like your $1000+ lens, but it's just as sharp, and is actually an OK lens.

Another problem with the t2i is the slow RAW burst speed. .......I have found that however long the shutter is open for, that is how long the raw takes to process with that camera. I was doing long exposure night shots and the processing of the raw would literally take 30 seconds before the camera could be used again.

Uh......that's because you have "Long Exposure Noise Reduction" turned on.
It's not Canon's fault you don't know how to use your own DSLR.

Think about it: How would taking a longer exposure affect the processing speed by the camera? It isn't affected, as it is still just one photo.


RAW continuous shooting doesn't last as long as JPEGs, as it usually dies out after 10 photos or so. However, this is usually enough for sports. If there's a limiting factor, it will be the continuous shooting speed of 3-4 fps. Judging by the camera he's upgrading from, I doubt this will even be a factor.

Furthermore, there's little reason to shoot in RAW rather than JPEGs. If professional sports photographers are shooting in JPEG mode, I'm sure a highschool coach will make do with JPEGs.

 

[Eaton Photos]

Geez,

There sure is a lot of b*tching & arguing going on. Does anyone that has contributed to this thread, actually shoot sports (HS/ U-18), and not from a casual standpoint??? It's a serious question.

Here's my 2¢.....

The OP does have a finite budget, but that doesn't mean one camera is better than another, because it has more Megapixels, a larger LCD, or a faster Frames Per Second capture capability. Pixels & FPS are marketing gimmicks. Give me a 300D/ Digital Rebel, and I will shoot the same shot, that you are recommending with the T2i/T1i. Lenses, ISO, & object of shot all being equal. Camera bodies do have limitations, as do lenses, but those limitations are there for a reason.

Here's what I'll recommend; Body wise I will recommend two. First is 8 year old technology, in the form of a used 1D. The 1D can be found for under $400 (Link- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/search.php). Second is a 40D, which is only 3 years old, and can be found for around $500 +/- some $$$. (Link- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/search.php)

Next since the OP's father is shooting daylight, I will suggest two lenses; Telephoto: 70-300 USM IS ($350 Avg)(Link- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/search.php), Wide Angle: Tamron 17-50/2.8 ($350 Avg)(Link- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/search.php).

Now onto my reasoning behind why I am recommending the 1D. Yes, while the 1D is "OLD" technologically speaking, when it comes to AF & locking onto a target, it will do better than any Rebel or XXD Body. Now the 1D ergonomically speaking, may be too big for what the OP's father is doing, but $$ for $$ it is the BEST bang for the buck. And while the 1D is lowly with only 4 MP, you can easily print 16X24's with the files that come out of it. It also has a shutter that tops out at 1/16000th of a sec for those bright & sunny days

The 3 (maybe 4) Biggest downsides to the 1D is, (1) that they chew through batteries, like we drink water (150-300 Images) per battery charge, (2) the Weight factor, & (3) the ISO gets really bad above 1250. Though I do know my share of 50 & 60+ y/o Photog's that shoot with 1D Bodies & 2.8 Glass. So the weight is more of a personal choice. (Maybe #4) is the small LCD (which is color). I don't use the LCD but to either change a setting in the menu, or to check my histogram.

Now, here is my other suggestion, which is the 40D. They sell anywhere between $475 & $600. The 40D does have a smaller form factor, has auto modes for those that never want to use a camera, the way it was intended to be used, and has lots of newer bells & whistles (Larger LCD, Better ISO, Smaller Form Factor/ Weight). Also shoots up to 6 FPS, has good tracking capabilities, and is easy to use & carry.

The lenses, I suggested are both excellent lenses, and will provide both a Wide Angle & Telephoto Aspect, with almost no loss of coverage. 20mm, is nothing to complain about. IS isn't useful for Sports, but it is useful for Statics & Low Light. Also the 7-3 is a great general purpose lens & a perfect telephoto lens for travel.

OP, I hope I gave you some food for thought, aside from the Rebel & 20D recommendations.

 

[toxic]

ok, so an SLR is a given for the response. it doesn't matter which one, though you might want to avoid lower Nikons (e.g. D40) since the used lens selection is limited.

best bet is a Canon Rebel (XSi, XS, XT, XTi), or 20 or 30D. basketball is a problem if its indoors, which I'm guessing it is...you'll have to dig around for a used Sigma 70-200. otherwise you can look at a Canon 70-200/4, 55-250 IS, or 70-300 IS. if you've got a $100 at the end, throw in a used 18-55 IS. the 70-200/4 is the second choice for indoor stuff since it'll work better than either of the other options...it won't be great, but it'll do. and it'll still be loads better than a p&s.

 

[Full of Win]

Here's what I'll recommend; Body wise I will recommend two. First is 8 year old technology, in the form of a used 1D. The 1D can be found for under $400 (Link- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/search.php). Second is a 40D, which is only 3 years old, and can be found for around $500 +/- some $$$. (Link- http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/search.php)
.

An old 1D is a good idea...if you can get a shutter count on it. Pro level gear, be it cameras or computers, get the snot used out of them to justify their price. If you do go this route ask to see the shutter count; the same as you would want to see the milage on a used car.


http://astrojargon.net/40DShutterCount.aspx?AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1

 

[funkboy]

A grand is a very reasonable budget to get started with this.

I suggest a Canon 40D and a 55-250 IS lens.

Why? Because this is what I own, and I've used it to shoot kite surfing, auto racing, horseback riding, tactical pistol competition, skiing, and a bunch of other stuff without any issues whatsoever. The 40D is still not so old & still supported by Canon Professional Services. The two together can be easily had on Amazon or eBay in like-new condition for less than $US 1k.

My GF has a 350D (and in fact I bought the 55-250 for her), and the difference in shooting speed, processing speed, AF performance, and handling between the two cameras is readily apparent. If I was primarily shooting sports I would not want to use a Rebel camera to do it.

I don't shoot sports very often, & certainly never for money. If I was a pro sports photographer I would certainly be using something else, such as a 1DIV and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS II (or a used 1DIIn & 70-200 f/2.8L IS mk1 if I had less cash), because my livelyhood & reputation would depend on getting the shot. But that's not the case, & my setup certainly gets the job done for what I need.

 

[MacFly69]

def get a 40D. as far as a lens, can't help you there as i only use L glass when i shoot sports. good luck.

 

[flosseR]

why no nikon?

hmm.. playing devils advocat here..what is wrong with a Used Nikon? say a D60 or a d40X kit? They are dirt cheap right now. You add a 70-300 VR lens to that and you are still way under your budget and still well equipped. Shooting outdoor sports with the 70-300 is a dream (speaking from experience) and the VR on it is awesome and works exactly as advertised, which is why you can find that lens in a lot of Pro bags.
Yes the D60 and D40's do not have the AF motor and blah blah. They work and they work extremely well, plus they are very easy to use and light, just like the lens.
oh and to all you "contributors" about .. I shoot this but its too expensive for you.. thank you but what actual contribution does that give to the Ops decision?

geez.
The Tamron/20D/long lens combo was actually the best recommendation so far.


My 2 C

//f

 

[El Cabong]

He may appreciate a larger screen as he gets older and develops vision issues.

+1 for a used 40D and third-party lenses. I shoot Nikon, but they don't have something equivalent for the same price.

Well a "good lens" is going to exhaust his budget.

Coming from a (what I assume is a fairly old) "basic" P&S, just about any SLR lens he'll end up using will seem "good" by comparison, and kit lenses are pretty decent, optically.