£1600 Budget for Sports Photography

[RichMann29]

Evening all,

I previously posted regarding this subject but with an £800 budget, which now I can increase. I have been searching forums, reviews, talking to shops for a couple of months now and I'm getting closer to purchasing my first DSLR kit. I want to get the best all round package I can build for sports photography, as for 6 months at least I wont have more money to be spending on equipment.

I will be following the rest of local football season and getting cracking with the motor racing season when it all kicks off from march time.

For this I have found (please add your comments)

New or s/h body - been looking at Nikon D7000/7100 and Canon 70d/7d
Invest more into the lens - f2.8 70-200mm and/or 120-400 sigma which has been labelled a sports lens? or picking up a 70-300mm either Nikon/Canon/Sigma/Tamron - other suggestions please as well.
Accessories - monopod, memory cards, rucksack, battery grip or extra batteries, editing software.

I would be very grateful if you could all add your opinions, as Im sure there are things Im missing which would assist me, as I'm looking to build myself a career in the photography world (maybe side career for a few years while learning)

Thanks Rich

[jurbie]

I shoot motorsport and a little bit of football with a Canon 70D which I'm more than happy with. My workhorse motorsport lens is a Sigma 50-500mm which I really can't fault. For football I use a Sigma 120-300mm purely because it gives me good reach plus it's a very fast lens which is what you need for football.

Bear in mind that you will struggle to shoot football in the evening or even after 4pm in the winter because your average non-league ground is very poorly lit, indeed I've shot League grounds which despite massive floodlights are still a nightmare.

Therefore if you can afford both the 70-200 and the 120-400 then that would be a good starting point as you'd have reasonable lenses for both disciplines.

You might need a monopod for the 120-400 also a cheap fishermans stool to sit on when you're pitchside. Loads of memory cards, some waterproofs for you and the camera and a bag to carry everything.

[budfox]

You will definitely want a monopod. Beside from making it easier to take the weight of your lens camera, they make it much easier to carry when shooting. Without the monopod you'll be taking the weight of the lens with the camera. With a monopod and a lens with a mount, you take the weight of the camera on the lens. This is MUCH better.

Talking of lenses, the 70-200 f/2.8 Nikons will cost at least twice as much as the 80-200 f/2.8 Nikons. I own one of these and it the sharpest and most solidly built piece of hardware you could ever wish for:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Nikon-80-200Mm-F2-8Ed-disc...

Mine only cost about £450 from MBP and it was an absolute steal.

D7000 is a good choice because the built-in focus motor opens up lens choices massively, you couldn't autofocus an AF-D lens otherwise. I'd buy a good used one from MBP and save a bit of money.

Once you get above 200mm you're looking at slower lenses or huge money. I also had a Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 but it cost £1600 and weighed a hell of a lot so it didn't get used much.

Of course one of the other things to try and do is blag your way closer to the action. You never know.

[Golaboots]

Second hand is the way to go. A Nikon D700 and the two ring 80-200 2.8 would be a fine choice.
The monopod is a good idea too, think of it as £40 VR that also saves your back.


Not sure what the Canon equivalents are but would imagine they're similar

[Simpo Two]

Golaboots said:

Second hand is the way to go.

I agree; the more 'pro' a body is the better the AF performance will be, eg for tracking, speed and general accuracy. Same goes for the lens.

[markmullen]

Canon 1D Mk3 - £600
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - £800
Canon 1.4x converter - £150

That'll give you fast frame rate, very quick AF, weather sealing, low light capability at f2.8 and taking into account the crop factor of 1.3x and the converter the equivalent of 364mm. It'll also last forever and you can hammer nails in with it. If you wanted to spend a little more the mk2 lens is superb.

[RichMann29]

super responses, great hearing from people that have/are using the equipment.

when shooting at the non league ground what length do you really start shooting from? Also to start with at a track someone mentioned on here previously that try to get 400mm upwards if possible in the budget as to get closer to the action. (I have some connections that may help blag my way closer)

who do you recommend for buying s/h from, I have been advised MPB Photograic, CameraWorld is local anyone else you have used and bought from?

Also how far back would you suggest going with the bodies, as some of the new cameras ive looked out only have better pixel or wifi or gps over some of the cameras that were built 5+ years ago?

Cheers, Rich

[Simpo Two]

A possible problem with going up to 400mm (on this budget) is that you'll run out of aperture which has a knock-on effect with shutter speed, either for freezing action or stopping camera movement. If you want the pan/blur effect then fine, but sometimes you might need 1/2000s.

Places to buy? Dealer or eBay; I've used the latter perfectly well.

How far back... well to get a good sports photo do you need 20Mp+, wifi or GPS? I'd suggest not. From the Nikon POV I'd go along with the D700 suggestion. You could save some money with a Sigma lens, eg 70-200mm f2.8 or 100-300mm f4. http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/used-equipment/us...

Make sure the lens is designated AF-S if Nikon or HSM if Sigma; this is important for fast focus.

How much is a D3 now I wonder?

[jurbie]

RichMann29 said:

when shooting at the non league ground what length do you really start shooting from? Also to start with at a track someone mentioned on here previously that try to get 400mm upwards if possible in the budget as to get closer to the action. (I have some connections that may help blag my way closer)

300mm will suffice for most football grounds, a mate of mine shoots in the Premier League and he swears by his 300mm prime. Also as stated above, the longer the lens then the less aperture you have and whilst with motorsport I'll shoot anywhere from 1/5th to 1/2000th, football is all about freezing the action so you won't want to drop below 1/1000th.

If you have 'connections' that are going to get you trackside then you'll also need to budget for £5 million of public liability insurance, usually around £100/year.

[ecsrobin]

RichMann29 said:

Also to start with at a track someone mentioned on here previously that try to get 400mm upwards if possible in the budget as to get closer to the action. (I have some connections that may help blag my way closer)

It's quite hard these days to get trackside with a camera even with contacts, as you can imagine everyone has a contact and the circuits are well clued up on that.

Also what is your intention with the images that you have taken, I have seen some circuits that have in the small print that you cannot sell your images if your just a member of the public although how they can enforce that is another matter

[RichMann29]

jurbie said:

If you have 'connections' that are going to get you trackside then you'll also need to budget for £5 million of public liability insurance, usually around £100/year.

I have been made aware of that initially I will be behind the fence doing it as a hobby before going down the route to try and get as close to the action as possible.

[RichMann29]

ecsrobin said:

It's quite hard these days to get trackside with a camera even with contacts, as you can imagine everyone has a contact and the circuits are well clued up on that.

Also what is your intention with the images that you have taken, I have seen some circuits that have in the small print that you cannot sell your images if your just a member of the public although how they can enforce that is another matter

I want to take them with view to get good enough shots to be able to sell, but that will come in time. First and foremost I will be getting out there and learning my way through the numerous techniques to find that sweet spot photo, along the way if people want to purchase them I wont stand in there way.

[RichMann29]

[quote=jurbie]

300mm will suffice for most football grounds, a mate of mine shoots in the Premier League and he swears by his 300mm prime. Also as stated above, the longer the lens then the less aperture you have and whilst with motorsport I'll shoot anywhere from 1/5th to 1/2000th, football is all about freezing the action so you won't want to drop below 1/1000th. [quote]

Would you then suggest I should be looking to get a prime lens along with a zoom lens as well if I can find within my budget?

[jurbie]

Absolutely not I was just using that as an example of what the top guys are doing, personally I can't imagine shooting football with a long prime but maybe that's why I'm not shooting the Premier League.

The best suggestion I've seen in this thread is from Mark who suggested:

Canon 1D Mk3 - £600
Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS - £800
Canon 1.4x converter - £150

If you wanted a newer body then you can get a 70D for that price and the lens and converter will give you the flexibility to chop and change between football and motorsport.

[RichMann29]

is Image stabilisation important to look for in the lenses when using an monopod for the majority of the time?

[jurbie]

It's not on any of my lenses and anyway I believe the advise is to switch it off when panning as it can cause problems. Either way I don't think it's something you need to worry about at the moment.

[Elderly]

RichMann29 said:

is Image stabilisation important to look for in the lenses when using an monopod for the majority of the time?

In your case it's the moving subject that you will need to freeze the action of, and IS is not going to help you there; it's a fast shutter speed that will
be required in most cases and hence you will need lenses with large apertures which will probably be out of your budget.
That's where a sensor that's capable of offering a high ISO comes into play,
and that's why generally a newer mid range DSLR would be better £ for £ for your needs than an older high end model.
But do your research, check sensor capabilities and also which models have what autofocus modules in them; many Nikon bodies shared the same modules between ranges.

[Simpo Two]

Elderly said:

In your case it's the moving subject that you will need to freeze the action of, and IS is not going to help you there; it's a fast shutter speed that will be required in most cases and hence you will need lenses with large apertures which will probably be out of your budget.
That's where a sensor that's capable of offering a high ISO comes into play, and that's why generally a newer mid range DSLR would be better £ for £ for your needs than an older high end model.

You're right but I'm sure anything pro/semipro from the last few years would be more than fine. For example the D700, the high-ISO low-light monster of 2008. Sure the later models are even better, but it's like having a car that does 300mph instead of 280mph. It's a pity there was no D400 (DX).

[Elderly]

Yes the D700 has good high ISO characteristics and good autofocus, but are FF long lenses for it going to be within the OP's budget, I would have thought that he'd be better off with a crop sensor?

[Simpo Two]

Elderly said:

Yes the D700 has good high ISO characteristics and good autofocus, but are FF long lenses for it going to be within the OP's budget, I would have thought that he'd be better off with a crop sensor?

If the OP goes for a 70-200 f2.8 they're all FF, and it looks like the Sigma 100-300 f4 I linked to earlier is too. However a crop (DX) sensor will give him 50% more reach and that could be equally important. The highest the Dxx series went in DX was the D300, good up to ISO1600 IMHO but well short of later bodies. And we're also getting into technique; just buying the kit and hosing off photos won't get good results.