Camera + lens for sports?

[2010]

Hey

I'm looking to buy a camera for sports, specifically tennis and soccer.

I was wondering which DSLR I should get. (D200?)
Budget isn't a large issue although I don't plan on getting the ultra high end model.

I wish to capture the ball hitting the racket, and a person's foot connecting with the soccer ball, so those would probably be my most difficult shots. (I need high FPS?)

I was also wondering also what lens I should get.
I will be sitting in the cheap seats, (high in the stands) so would I need a telephoto lens or a zoom lens? I'm not sure how much 300mm zoom is :P

Thanks

2010

[T06]

70-200 Vr f2.8:)

[Rooz]

look at kev's sig.
close topic. :)

[Honest Gaza]

70-200 Vr f2.8:)

f/2.8 especially for night shots

[Prospero]

First of all, welcome to the forum.

A D200 is very suitable for sports, it can shoot up to 5 frames per second which will make it easier to get a well timed shot.

The lens you will need for this purpose depends mainly on the light you will be shooting in. If you are shooting sports during the day, a 70-300 zoom will suit you well. For tennis this should give you enough reach, for football you might need a slightly longer lens, given that the field is a lot larger there.

The Sigma 70-300 f/4-5.6 APO is a good lens for its low price, but if you can afford it, the Nikkor 70-300 VR would probably be a better choice. This lens is sharper, more contrasty and has VR, which is nice to have in low light (though not for sports, since this requires faster shutterspeeds).

If you need a longer lens, the Sigma 80-400 OS, the Nikkor 80-400 VR and the Sigma 50-500 are also very nice. They are a lot heavier and bigger than the 70-300 lenses.

If the sports you will be shooting is in low light, the choice is a lot smaller.
There are 70-200 zooms; the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8, the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR. Each of these lenses is very good. I think the Sigma or the 70-200VR are best, since they focus fastest. These lenses may be a bit short for your purpose, though.

[VTEC_EATER]

Ive found that burst shooting isn't something I count on to get one of those "perfectly timed" shots. In fact I usually turn it off, or just do one shot at the time. Yeah I know my camera takes 2.5 shots per second but I cant actually calculate that out in my head to know when the perfect time is to release the shutter. It becomes more luck at that point. For example:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1271/534643949_3e4c8a1b38_o.jpg

I took this in "single shot" (or whatever Nikon calls it) mode, no burst. With the burst mode I probably would have missed to contact with the ball. You just need anticipation to get these shots.

However, for a series of shots, then a nice burst rate is the way to go. The D200 has 5 fps, D40 & D80 are 3. Burst rate is nice for sports, but so is high ISO, when it comes to night time shooting. From what I have seen, I am completely unimpressed with the D200's ability to handle high ISO. I feel that my D50 has better high ISO capabilities than the D200. The D40 & D80 are even better at high ISO.

Or, if you really want a camera made for sports, you really should look at Canon. Better ISO, faster burst rate, larger line of lenses, ect. I don't mean to turn you away from Nikon. I think they are great cameras, but I don't want you to spend all your money on a system that may not be the best one for your needs.

[tcadwall]

You asked one of the easiest questions to answer... It is very unusual for someone to clearly state what they are looking to do with it, and even more unusual for someone to say that they have an open (even within reason) budget. I would agree for what you are looking to do, the D200 with the 70-200mmVR would be a great option. Many of the up-to-300mm zoom lenses just don't have the accuity and low f-stop that would make them good for this - unless you REALLY want to spend a lot of money!

[TNB]

Hey
I'm looking to buy a camera for sports, specifically tennis and soccer.

Have you checked with the event centers about what kind of cameras and lens are allowed? Some won't allow cameras with removeable lenses and some place limits on the length of the lens. Myself, I've shot both tennis and soccer with a D200 using a Nikkor 70-200 F/2.8 VR. At the Tennis Channel Open, I was able to get some pretty good "raw" shots in low level lighting (court lights) without a flash until I was told to stop taking photos since I didn't have media credentials for that event--they didn't seem to care about the point and shoots even when they used a flash. In my opinion, the 70-200 F/2.8 VR is rather short for soccer unless you are down on the field and then it is still short at times. However, there is always the optional Nikkor 1.7x teleconverter that can be used with the 70-200 F/2.8 VR which I own as well.

Or, if you really want a camera made for sports, you really should look at Canon. Better ISO, faster burst rate, larger line of lenses, ect. I don't mean to turn you away from Nikon. I think they are great cameras, but I don't want you to spend all your money on a system that may not be the best one for your needs.
These type of post make me laugh since at most pro-events I've shot at, I've probably seen more Nikons than Canons. And after speaking to a few Canon shooters, I learned they used to be Nikon shooters; however, the switched either because Canon started to sponsor them or because they thought Canon's lenses were less expensive in the long run. Sure there are exceptions, but I tend to doubt that the average consumer is going to spend $30,000.00 on a specific lens. And the frame rate per second argument also tends to be rather misleading to me since some may claim to have the same frame rate as another brand, but the write speed/buffer size is different--for example, I quoted some stats from both Nikon and Canon sometime back which tended to show that the D200 was faster in that regard though both cameras were rated at 5 frames per second.


Nikon D200

5fps high-speed continuous shooting: Capture fast action and fleeting expressions with the ability to capture high-resolution images at a rapid 5 frames per second in continuous bursts of up to 22 NEF (RAW) or 37 JPEG (FINE - LARGE) shots**
http://www.nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=2&productNr=25235

Canon 30D

User-selectable high-speed and low-speed continuous shooting at 5 fps or 3 fps - up to 30 (JPEG), 11 (RAW) or 9 (RAW+JPEG) consecutive frames when set at 5 fps and fast 0.15-second startup time
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelFeaturesAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12929&pageno=1

[rawpaw18]

Vtec,
The guy in the shot looks as if he has a crop of
hair up in a rubber band or something.

[VTEC_EATER]

No, the guy is almost bald.

That little poof of whatever above his head is the sun shining on a dormer roof. You can see its behind the fence.

TNB: To each their own I suppose.

I know that Nikon makes a quality product, however, their price point tends to be a little higher. If we are looking at sports lenses only take a look at the 17-55 F/2.8 AF-S ($1200) vs. 17-55 F/2.8 IS USM ($999), 70-200 F/2.8 AF-S VR ($1,615) vs. 70-200 F/2.8 IS USM ($1,699), the 300mm F/2.8 AF-S VR ($4,500) vs. 300mm F/2.8 IS USM ($3,900), and if you really intend to be serious about sports photography, the 400mm F/2.8 AF-S ($7,500) vs. 400mm F/2.8 IS USM ($6,500), the 500mm F/4 AF-S ($7,200) vs. 500mm F/4 IS USM ($5,500), and finally the 600mm F/4 AF-S ($9,080) vs. 600mm F/4 IS USM ($7,200).

Now, I know that the large primes are out of most peoples budget, and more than likely your average professional sports photographer wont be using the 500 or 600mm primes, but they will be using the 300 and 400mm primes.

Excluding the 500 & 600mm lenses, the above zooms and telephotos are as follows: Nikon $14,815, Canon $13,098. Not to mention that you have image stabilization in the 17-55 and the 400mm. So with the money left over you can buy a brand new 30D ($1,044) in the Canon camp, and if you so please a 10-22 F/3.5-4.5 ($690).

I don't want to get into an argument of Nikon vs. Canon, I'm just trying to illustrate my point that Canon has the leading edge when it comes to sports. Price, lens selection, and ISO performance it beats Nikon. But like I said, I dont want to steer this person away from Nikon, I just want to make sure he/she is informed in their decision.

[TNB]

Actually, I would have thought that "most" pro-sports photographers would NOT have purchased those large 400+ zoom lenses since (1) they would have media creditials and not have needed such a large zoom, or (2) would be sponsored and not have had to pay for 400+ zoom lenses, and/or (3) would have rented 400+ zoom lenses for that special occassion.

[VTEC_EATER]

Actually, I would have thought that "most" pro-sports photographers would NOT have purchased those large 400+ zoom lenses since (1) they would have media creditials and not have needed such a large zoom, or (2) would be sponsored and not have had to pay for 400+ zoom lenses, and/or (3) would have rented 400+ zoom lenses for that special occassion.

Im not sure. Ask cwphoto in the Canon forum. He owns the 70-200, 300, 400, & 600 lenses (amongst many other top of the line Canon's) that I posted earlier in the thread. I believe he is freelance and therefor doesn't have a large company paying for his equipment.

However, even with media credentials, depending on the venue, a 400mm lens is a common item. Take roadracing for example. Race tracks are being designed and rebuilt to have huge amounts of runoff room to meet new safety standards placed by the different racing organizations. I know at Road America (Elkhart Lake, WI) with media credentials, you may be able to get away with 300mm if you are on the inside of the turn, however, I know of a couple guys shooting with their newly purchased 400mm f/2.8 with a 2x teleconverter attached. They seem to get pretty good shots:

http://www.gron4.com/

http://www.gron4.com/examples/AMA/friday/1.jpg

http://www.gron4.com/examples/AMA/friday/3.jpg

http://www.gron4.com/examples/AMA/friday/6.jpg

http://www.gron4.com/examples/AMA/friday/4.jpg

Unfortunately, they delete the EXIF data from their photos prior to uploading them on the web, so I can not conform the focal lengths they used in the above shots. I did talk with them, however, at the track the weekend after purchasing the 4-hundo. They were testing it out and playing with a 2x teleconverter on the thing (800 F/5.6...... great googly-moogly). Basically, they could stand about 150 yards from where they were shooting and get fully framed bikes coming head on through the turn. They certainly make for great shots, as you can see above.

[TNB]

I'm not claiming that a 400+ may not come in handy at certain types of sporting events--I even own an old clunker of a 400 though I've only used it for landscapes at some sand dunes in Death Valley. Of course, it doesn't really matter if one can't bring in a certain length lens into a sporting event unless he is sponsored one way or another--team or media.

It just seems ironic to me about how many people push Canon when their reasoning is based on super zooms (that they don't usually own) since the average Joe probably doesn't use super zooms and then try to shift the subject to price when Canon's high end cameras are more expensive than Nikon's D2Xs. In my opinion, the entire argument is rather off-topic as well when the lenses are more costly than the high-end camera bodies considering the OP already stated that he didn't want to purchase a high-end camera body.

More importanly, in my opinion anyway, if a potential customer prefers the feel of one camera body over another, that person may want to choose that particular camera body and brand since he or she may enjoy the feel better, hence use the camera itself more. Myself, I would also try out that particular camera body with various sizes of lenses that the person is interested in since the type and size of lens will tend to change the balance. After all, there is no use fighting something and wasting more energy when one is trying to enjoy an event. Consequently, to me, it doesn't matter which model and brand someone choses since they are they ones that need to be happy with their own choice.

[VTEC_EATER]

I'm not claiming that a 400+ may not come in handy at certain types of sporting events--I even own an old clunker of a 400 though I've only used it for landscapes at some sand dunes in Death Valley. Of course, it doesn't really matter if one can't bring in a certain length lens into a sporting event unless he is sponsored one way or another--team or media.

It just seems ironic to me about how many people push Canon when their reasoning is based on super zooms (that they don't usually own) since the average Joe probably doesn't use super zooms and then try to shift the subject to price when Canon's high end cameras are more expensive than Nikon's D2Xs. In my opinion, the entire argument is rather off-topic as well when the lenses are more costly than the high-end camera bodies considering the OP already stated that he didn't want to purchase a high-end camera body.

More importanly, in my opinion anyway, if a potential customer prefers the feel of one camera body over another, that person may want to choose that particular camera body and brand since he or she may enjoy the feel better, hence use the camera itself more. Myself, I would also try out that particular camera body with various sizes of lenses that the person is interested in since the type and size of lens will tend to change the balance. After all, there is no use fighting something and wasting more energy when one is trying to enjoy an event. Consequently, to me, it doesn't matter which model and brand someone choses since they are they ones that need to be happy with their own choice.

I agree. In fact I chose Nikon because I liked how the camera felt, its build quality, its menu system, and because it seemed the best camera to do everything I wanted out of photography. Not to say Canon doesnt make a quality product. They certainly do, and I don't think that going with their system will let the owner down.

I really enjoy my Nikon, even if it is just an entry level D50, and not some high end D2X. I think the photos it takes are amazing. Its a "do everything very well" camera. For Sports its great, for landscapes its great, for portraits, it is great. High ISO is pretty decent, though the D40 and D80 beat it out. Its build quality feels a hell of a lot more solid than its competitors. Most all lenses work with it; AI and AIS metering aside. There really arent many downfalls to teh camera. Yeah no depth of field preview, only 5 autofocus points, no custom white balance fine tuning... But I dont really feel that I am missing much without those items.

Anyways, I just wanted to inform the original poster that there are other options out there and try to be as best informed as possible. Im guessing we scared him/her away with our little debate here as I haven't seen him/her post in the past couple days.

[Honest Gaza]

Hey

I'm looking to buy a camera for sports, specifically tennis and soccer.

I wish to capture the ball hitting the racket...

I will be sitting in the cheap seats, (high in the stands) so would I need a telephoto lens or a zoom lens? I'm not sure how much 300mm zoom is :P

Thanks

2010

An example of shots with a Canon 400D (XTi) and 70-300mm IS lens.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27741

Not as successful at night time however.

[TNB]

Im guessing we scared him/her away with our little debate here as I haven't seen him/her post in the past couple days.
Perhaps, just checking on lens "size" limitations with venues. Then again, the prices of the lenses themselves could scare some people away. I still think about when I tried out the Hasselblad H3D-39 megapixal camera and how some of the extended warranties are more than many cameras. A "poor" way to justify spending money on my camera equipment. :rolleyes: