Sports photography on a budget. Is older kit worth considering.

Z

Zilog

Messages
275
Edit My Images
Yes
After a decade out of the game I am looking at getting back in to sports photography due to a very active child. I will however be on a very tight budget, so am looking at used and was just wondering is older kit worth considering. I still have a A mount Minolta 200mm F2.8 HS lens and 1.4 Teleconverter kicking about so did think about a Sony A99. Though older Nikon glass is relatively cheap, so a Nikon D3/D4 with 70-200mm F2.8 is a possibility, I see Nikon fit Sigma 120-200mm F2.8 are affordable used but don't know much about them. New bodies I am guessing are worlds ahead these days, so perhaps a A9 with a A mount adapter is the way to go. Though I would have no cash for dedicated full frame E mount glass any time soon so perhaps an A9 would be crippled and pointless with old glass. I have also seen that the Olympus MFT cameras are well priced on the used market, and there 40-150mm (80-300mm effective) looks an interesting lens. Perhaps that would be a better option. What's your thoughts or recommendations?
 
Last edited:
I have seen very good results with the Olympus EM1 MkII and 40-150mm F/2.8, Probably cost you around a £1000 used for the two.

I own both but am not responsible for those very good results :sneaky: though to be fair I mostly shoot stuff that stays pretty still.

Noise may be an issue if you shoot a lot of indoors sports without flash.

I have not used the Nikon so don't know how much better or worse it would be overall.
 
An A9 is a brilliant camera but I'd say it would be pointless without e-mount glass. There are some crazy good deals on D4s and 1Dxs and the older first version 70-200mm F2.8 is/vrs can be had for around £450. So for just over a grand you would be shooting kit that pros were using at the Olympics not so long ago. It is getting a bit like phones where cameras are concerned. You have to pay quite a bit more for fairly modest gains.
 
I've recently upgraded from Canon 5d mk11 to a mk111 i use a l series 70-200 lens, and even though im using better kit but not the best, i still used to get published in the regional paper. Its more about the settings and composition than the kit. The old adage of knowing how to get the best results from the kit you have. Have fun and enjoy !
 
Football for West Auckland, the won the World Cup twice ! Now in the Ebac Northern League.
 
toohuge said:
The Nikon D3/4 are still very, very capable cameras, pair them with any AF-S 70-200 2.8's and you'll be good
Click to expand...
Exactly what I was thinking. A mate of mine still does footie with a D3, even first div stuff.
 
I have newer kit, (D4s, D5, etc) but, my actual go to camera for sheer sharpness is believe it or not, a Nikon D3s! I cant explain why but the D3s knocks socks of the D4's & 5?, ok, the actual resolutions etc are less but as a sports supported camera on a budget, used for newspapers, (DPI78), it's superb still.
 
If I was looking I would look at a Sony A6000 plus the Sony 55-210 mm lens. All the fun of the fair plus you can buy adapters and put your old lens on it (manual focus only).

Or, if you want something tougher than a brick if your handbrake goes and you’re parked on a hill, have a look at an Canon 7D (first one) with the Canon 75-300mm (you could also keep a little 50mm prime in your bag. Great cheap lens).

Hope you find what you’re looking for. Have fun :)
 
Skyline said:
Or, if you want something tougher than a brick if your handbrake goes and you’re parked on a hill, have a look at an Canon 7D (first one) with the Canon 75-300mm (you could also keep a little 50mm prime in your bag. Great cheap lens).
Click to expand...


The original 7D would get trounced by a Nikon D3 for IQ and usability for sport and as for the 75-300 - frankly it is not worth the components that it was made with.
 
DemiLion said:
The original 7D would get trounced by a Nikon D3 for IQ and usability for sport and as for the 75-300 - frankly it is not worth the components that it was made with.
Click to expand...
As a Canon shooter through and through, I have to agree with all that 100%
 
DemiLion said:
The original 7D would get trounced by a Nikon D3 for IQ and usability for sport and as for the 75-300 - frankly it is not worth the components that it was made with.
Click to expand...

eek, I did mean the 55-250.

2011 I was standing near the A2 practicing my pan with it lol

 
I’ve had the Sony A99 with Minolta 200 2.8. A beautiful prime lens but that combo wouldn’t be my first choice for action. Focusing accuracy issues with the A99 and the screw drive lens isn’t the fastest.

I currently have a Nikon and have also used all of their 70-200 2.8’s and that would be where my money goes.

I also have a m4/3rds system with a 40-150 and whilst it would give good results your starting off on the back foot with depth of field full frame equivalent to f5.6 so subject isolation will be not impossible but more difficult.

TLDR: Nikon.
 
I think the D700 uses the same excellent Multi-CAM 3500FX autofocus system as the D3, so could make further savings there to put towards lenses. Although, worth noting that the D700 shutter life is 150k whereas the D3 is 300k, which could be important if buying used with high shutter counts.

This is a great website for searching across many of the used equipment sites: https://usedlens.co.uk
 
All I can say is that you can use surprisingly simple equipment for sports photography, depending on what you are trying to achieve.

About 40 years ago I did sports for the local papers with nothing more than a TeleRolleiflex (a rollfilm twin lens with a fixed focal length of 135mm) for long shots. The pictures got used and I got paid...

Soccer tackle Crediton TeleRollei.jpg
 
Seeing as I'm a Nikon guy I'm gonna suggest Nikon also but, find one you like to handle and carry and learn to use it. As for a lens, I have a 70-200 and never use it anymore. Replaced it with a 55-300 shooting dog's at field trials and for a walk around I got an 18-200 Tamron. wide on the low end and tight enough for most things on the high end. 55-300 give's you a bit less on the low end but better on the high end!
 
Was out yesterday, maybe the day before, and ran into a guy with the same camera I have, Nikon 7000. I had on my 18-200 Tamron lens but he had on an 18-300 Nikon lens. I'd never heard of it before and there it was! I have to think for things like sport's that would be better than my 55-300, greater range! Imagine missing the photo of your life because you couldn't get close enough or far enough back! Standing there on the sideline taking photo's and a play comes right into your lap and you can't move! That would be what 18mm would be for, no lens to change. Opposite might be true with the 300mm end! I have a 170-500 but it's just to heavy to use without a tripod. Anyway for that close in shot, 170mm wouldn't cut it! Shooting sport's where there's lot's of movement IMO calls for a lens with a wide range zoom. My 80-210 just missed on both ends. I think 80-210 is what mine is, haven't looked at it since getting my 55-300!
 
Don Fischer said:
Was out yesterday, maybe the day before, and ran into a guy with the same camera I have, Nikon 7000. I had on my 18-200 Tamron lens but he had on an 18-300 Nikon lens. I'd never heard of it before and there it was! I have to think for things like sport's that would be better than my 55-300, greater range! Imagine missing the photo of your life because you couldn't get close enough or far enough back! Standing there on the sideline taking photo's and a play comes right into your lap and you can't move! That would be what 18mm would be for, no lens to change. Opposite might be true with the 300mm end! I have a 170-500 but it's just to heavy to use without a tripod. Anyway for that close in shot, 170mm wouldn't cut it! Shooting sport's where there's lot's of movement IMO calls for a lens with a wide range zoom. My 80-210 just missed on both ends. I think 80-210 is what mine is, haven't looked at it since getting my 55-300!
Click to expand...
That is why most sports shooters have at least two cameras and often a third
 
wookie6262 said:
That is why most sports shooters have at least two cameras and often a third
Click to expand...
M50 Mk2 + 70-200 F2.8 and I'm thinking of adding an R5 with a 24-70 or 28-70 to the mix (swap the lenses over between the cameras) to cover all bases on sports stuff.
 
DemiLion said:
The original 7D would get trounced by a Nikon D3 for IQ and usability for sport and as for the 75-300 - frankly it is not worth the components that it was made with.
Click to expand...
The 7d was not the best camera in low light either, not in the same class as a D3
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top