Camera for Rugby

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Temeura

Messages
3
Name
Dan
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I am looking to start taking photos of my daughter's Rugby team and the more I read, the more confused I get.

Looking to spend around £1k and was thinking about £500ish on a camera body and similar on a 70-200/300 lens.

My main confusion as whether I should buy a new beginner camera with up-to-date tech or buy a EOS 1DX which is 10 years old but was pro at the time?
 
KIPAX said:
A 1dx is still pro now and will do a better job than anyhting else in that price range
Click to expand...
Thanks, I think I get hung up on new processors and it only being 18mp compared to 24mp which seems fairly standard these days.
 
Your best bet would be something like a second hand Nikon D3400 or Canon 1300D body, budgeting no more than £150 and then look for a second hand Tamron 16~300mm to fit the body you bought, which should come in around £250.

The Tamron lens gives you a very wide to a very long focus and there is very little it cannot do. Then, use that kit for hundreds of pictures, until you've explored it thoroughly. An outfit like that would have been an impossible dream just 20 years ago and is entirely capable of producing first class pictures, once you've learned to handle it. If and only when you find something it won't do, consider changing the bits for others - the money you've not spent can go into a savings account and earn interest until that time comes.

Taken with the Tamron at 16mm...

Halifax bomber at Yorkshire Air Museum A65 DSC02648.JPG

Taken with the Tamron at around 100mm...

Three men and a door A65 DSC00323.JPG

Taken with the Tamron at 300mm...

Stilt dancer in Princesshay Exeter A65 DSC00353.JPG
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Your best bet would be something like a second hand Nikon D3400 or Canon 1300D body, budgeting no more than £150 and then look for a second hand Tamron 16~300mm to fit the body you bought, which should come in around £250.

The Tamron lens gives you a very wide to a very long focus and there is very little it cannot do. Then, use that kit for hundreds of pictures, until you've explored it thoroughly. An outfit like that would have been an impossible dream just 20 years ago and is entirely capable of producing first class pictures, once you've learned to handle it. If and only when you find something it won't do, consider changing the bits for others - the money you've not spent can go into a savings account and earn interest until that time comes.

Taken with the Tamron at 16mm...
Click to expand...

Please completely ignore this advice and listen to people that actually know vaguely what they are talking about; ie Tony and AndrewC.

What Mr Flannigan has suggested will leave you frustrated, pisched off and with average quality images at best.

Yes, a 1Dx may 'only' be 18Mpx, but the IQ is so good that I can make a 75% crop and still come out with a very good quality image - even when upres'ed.

If we are going to willy wave, then here are some actually relevant images, of action sport, oh, wait, they are rugby...


First to show the 50% crop:

Rugby1.jpg

And the to show the shot at 2948. I push those images up to 3500px without any quality loss.

MOC10220.jpg

Shot with a 1Dx and a 70-200/4 Mk1 (my f/2.8 is off the road at the moment.

That combo will cost you almost exactly £1k from MPB.

Edit - sorry that's wrong. This was shot on a 500mm, but I'm using a 70-200mm f/4 as my short lens.
 
Last edited:
Yep - at this price range, the 1DX is the best bet. There are a few 1dxii's at MPB for 650, the ii was / is a big upgrade from the 1dx imo. Both a sensational cameras and more than capable for what you are hoping to shoot.

There's still a lot of us using the 1dx/ii cameras out there shooting sport successfully - amazing cameras for the prices atm.
 
You can pick up a Nikon D5 for under a grand and a used 70-200 2.8 for around £600-700 (seen two this week)
 
DemiLion said:
Please completely ignore this advice and listen to people that actually know vaguely what they are talking about; ie Tony and AndrewC.

What Mr Flannigan has suggested will leave you frustrated, pisched off and with average quality images at best.
Click to expand...
It is really pleasant to see my supporters' club out in force.

Dan will, of course, make up his own mind about he wishes to spend his money and I wish him well. However, with 55 years experience of both professional and amateur photography, I have given him an alternative view of what is possible with modern equipment at a low cost, which is often just as good as much more expensive kit.

As he seems to be starting out, spending a great deal on once very expensive equipment, sold secondhand in his price range, may mean that he'll be getting a camera and lens that has been well thrashed and subject to failure - after all, professional kit that works reliably is seldom sold on when it could be earning revenue. Rather, it's sold on when it becomes less reliable or is sufficiently out of date that it can no longer do the work required. As a general rule, second hand consumer cameras and lenses are in better condition than second hand professional cameras and lenses. The consumer cameras and lenses will often be little used. Modern standards of design and construction mean that such kit will often be able to provide images that even the most demanding of viewers will be pleased by.
 
If you already happened to own what AndrewFlannigan suggests, you could turn up at a rugby match and come back with some satisfactory shots - BUT, you will quickly determine the limitations of the equipment and then become frustrated, especially if you are doing more than just taking photos of one player.

For sport you want a camera that has accurate and fast focussing capability, robust and with some degree of weather sealing. You may be working in less than optimum light, which also means possibly working at higher ISO levels in order to maintain a high-ish shutter speed. The 1D series gives you all that and more.

A good lens will focus quickly. It will have a fast aperture which not only assists with autofocus accuracy, but allows some degree of separation of the subject from the background. Canon's 70-200 L range will do this perfectly. All versions of the 70-200 L range are superb - f/4, f/4 IS or the various f/2.8 versions with or without IS.

They will all accept a x1.4 teleconverter if required. The batteries are also high capacity and last ages.

There are plenty of lowish mileage 1DX's out there - bought by amateurs who are buying them for the same reasons that the professionals do - that they are very good options for sport.

I'd also treat yourself to a decent strap. Whether its a neck strap or sling strap, there are much more comfortable options out there than the one that comes with the camera.

Whilst the camera and lenses have some weather sealing, I usually use a chamois leather as a method of rain proofing, or a more specific rain cover if its really tipping it down.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
However, with 55 years experience of both professional and amateur photography, I have given him an alternative view of what is possible with modern equipment at a low cost, which is often just as good as much more expensive kit.
Click to expand...


You keep mentioning your professional background and yet I have seen nothing that would indicate that experience.

Please post an actual sports action shot to show the OP that you have the experience to advise what you have.

Bonus points if it is rugby.
 
andrewc said:
If you already happened to own what AndrewFlannigan suggests, you could turn up at a rugby match and come back with some satisfactory shots - BUT, you will quickly determine the limitations of the equipment and then become frustrated, especially if you are doing more than just taking photos of one player.
Click to expand...
All of which I agree with.

However, I took the impression, perhaps wrongly, that Dan is starting out, which is why he is looking to buy a camera and lens. If that is the case, it isn't a bad thing to start with a modern consumer camera and lens, which he will lose little money on, if he then finds it necessary to trade up. The difficulty, when an expert advises a beginner, is to synchronise the expert's view to that of the beginner. What the beginner does not know is often beyond the expert's understanding.

Also, there is a good reason why there are many times more "amateur" cameras made and sold than "professional" cameras, which is that the cheaper equipment will do 90% of what the dearer equipment can achieve, for as little as 10% of the cost.
 
Last edited:
AndrewFlannigan said:
Also, there is a good reason why there are many times more "amateur" cameras made and sold than "professional" cameras, which is that the cheaper equipment will do 90% of what the dearer equipment can achieve, for as little as 10% of the cost.
Click to expand...

The two cameras that you've suggested have nothing like 90% of the capability of the 1Dx, which was mentioned in the brief. Not even 50%.

And they are 50% of the used price, not 10.

Poor fps (5 & 3 v 12), Low AF points (11 & 9 v 61), poor AF quality with no tracking, lousy IQ above 1600 ISO, single card slots and more.

Now you were going to qualify your sports experience, weren't you?
 
DemiLion said:
:tumbleweed:

What a surprise.


Not.
Click to expand...
I normally ignore you but perhaps you should remember that there are many people who have greatly differing experience to your own. Sharing that experience may, or may not, be of use to someone asking a question.

What will never be of use to anyone, is personal attacks on those who hold different opinions to yourself, which can do little more than make you look like a foolish bully.
 
DemiLion said:
:tumbleweed:

What a surprise.


Not.
Click to expand...

AndrewFlannigan said:
I normally ignore you but perhaps you should remember that there are many people who have greatly differing experience to your own. Sharing that experience may, or may not, be of use to someone asking a question.

What will never be of use to anyone, is personal attacks on those who hold different opinions to yourself, which can do little more than make you look like a foolish bully.
Click to expand...

Lads, knock it off, there is no need.

I could delete and dish warnings out but I will leave them as examples of how not to behave on an open forum.

:police:
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Your best bet would be something like a second hand Nikon D3400 or Canon 1300D body, budgeting no more than £150
Click to expand...
If you were going down that route you would be better with a D7100 or its canon equivalent. Setting all other things aside in term of IQ, MP, low iso performance, fps, etc, for handling the D3xxx or D5xxx series have a fundamental issue with only one command dial so dialing in settings requires some manual dexterity not really conducive to action shots and extremely frustrating. The D7xxx series however has 2 command dials and you can set one of the buttons to alter iso. Much better experience.

I have no issures with a D3xxx, I started with on e adn have a number of shots i'm happy with from it but more still life/ landscape where the limits are a bit less of an issue
 
Dale. said:
Lads, knock it off, there is no need.

I could delete and dish warnings out but I will leave them as examples of how not to behave on an open forum.

:police:
Click to expand...


If someone is offering really, REALLY, bad advice when it comes to money, due to a complete and total lack of experience in that field, I will always question them.

The problem is that Andrew goes on about his 55 year experience and yet provides consistently poor advice, especially in the fields of professional photography and legal matters.

If he does that, then I will always disagree. I'm not bullying him (as he seems to claim), I am protecting those that he offers really shonky opinions to masked by supposed experience that is nowhere in evidence.
 
Wait a few months, & there will be a huge amount of Nikon gear going reasonably cheap! I'm retiring & selling up!,
Tried a "toe in the water" post on sales, but, it got removed?.

Maybe this will too?. Info to follow in a couple of months after contracts fulfilled :).
 
Bluesman graham said:
Tried a "toe in the water" post on sales, but, it got removed?.
Click to expand...
There are a few reasons that sales posts get removed
1) posting outside the classified section
2) no prices.
3) not immediately for sale.
We have a price check section If you were looking for prices.
I don't remember your specific issue, but the market place header tells you to read the rules before posting.
I'm guessing you didn't.
 
I get that Chris,
1, nope been here a long time
2 agreed, not selling yet!
3 again agreed hence the terms set out!
again I stated I'd apply prices once available?, (think i stated August),
however, how is a "will have for sale" an infringement on a sales posts? surly it's just to enquire on any future sales?
Anyway, I bow to your rules & will sell elsewhere!, sorry for your loss members.
 
Bluesman graham said:
however, how is a "will have for sale" an infringement on a sales posts? surly it's just to enquire on any future sales?
Click to expand...
The rules are clear, and have been like that in many years
The item must be in your possession, and available for sale at the time of posting the advert on TP.

It's either for sale or it's not, when you are ready to sell, feel free to post the advert.


FYI something else you may have missed, sales threads are deleted if there
has been no response in 6 months.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
Your best bet would be something like a second hand Nikon D3400 or Canon 1300D body, budgeting no more than £150 and then look for a second hand Tamron 16~300mm to fit the body you bought, which should come in around £250.

The Tamron lens gives you a very wide to a very long focus and there is very little it cannot do. Then, use that kit for hundreds of pictures, until you've explored it thoroughly. An outfit like that would have been an impossible dream just 20 years ago and is entirely capable of producing first class pictures, once you've learned to handle it. If and only when you find something it won't do, consider changing the bits for others - the money you've not spent can go into a savings account and earn interest until that time comes.

Taken with the Tamron at 16mm...

View attachment 387403

Taken with the Tamron at around 100mm...

View attachment 387404

Taken with the Tamron at 300mm...

View attachment 387405
Click to expand...
Now this is good advice. I don't use my camera's to make a living so the photo's I do are more simply a reminder to myself of a point in time! Perfect is not necessary for me and with the equipment I have, acceptable is well within range.
 
Don Fischer said:
Now this is good advice. I don't use my camera's to make a living so the photo's I do are more simply a reminder to myself of a point in time! Perfect is not necessary for me and with the equipment I have, acceptable is well within range.
Click to expand...

A
most people offer a camera within price range and perfect for the OP request to shoot sport.. (its built for sports)

B
one person offers cameras within price range that are not really suitable for the OP to shoot sport..


Can you please tell me why you think a non sports camera is better than a sports camera for the OP to shoot sport.. it would be helpful to me and I am sure to the OP to know why :) from what I can gather your supporting the theory that the OP should buy a camera that isnt suitable for his needs.. because you have one ?
 
Last edited:
A camera is no more than a tool. It's the photographer that get's the photo's! it ain't the tool, it's the mechanic!
 
Yes, a camera is a tool. But a camera mostly designed around the requirements of professional sports photographers, which is now an affordable option for an amateur looking to shoot sport, is a more far more appropriate tool than a basic level camera. You don't take a butter knife to a knife fight.
 
Don Fischer said:
it ain't the tool, it's the mechanic!
Click to expand...
I agree, this is the point that needs to be borne in mind.

The original poster appears to be telling us that he's a beginner. and therefor a camera designed for use by a beginner would seem to be suitable for his needs
 
DemiLion said:
If someone is offering really, REALLY, bad advice when it comes to money, due to a complete and total lack of experience in that field, I will always question them.

The problem is that Andrew goes on about his 55 year experience and yet provides consistently poor advice, especially in the fields of professional photography and legal matters.

If he does that, then I will always disagree. I'm not bullying him (as he seems to claim), I am protecting those that he offers really shonky opinions to masked by supposed experience that is nowhere in evidence.
Click to expand...
Well that's one opinion, nothing more!
 
andrewc said:
You don't take a butter knife to a knife fight.
Click to expand...
If you're very skilled with knives, but your opponent is an absolute beginner to knife-fighting, you might well do well with even just a butter knife...

I kind of agree with Andrew Flannigan. I've shot sports with the most 'inappropriate' equipment; I once did a cycling track event with a Nikon FM2 and a few manual focus lenses. No motordrive, no AF. I got some pretty decent results. I had to anticipate shots, pre-focus, all the old tricks. I'm not so sure advising a beginner to buy a pro-level camera is quite the best advice; it might work for YOU with your experience etc, but this is the thing, we see it so often; it's not about YOU. I've seen some well meaning, but ultimately very poor advice given out on this forum and elsewhere, by people who just aren't putting themselves in someone else's shoes. Simpler equipment may force you to slow down, consider each shot more. There's nothing like the discipline of having to produce good results using 'inferior' or 'inadequate' kit. Having a pro-level camera, with all its bells and whistles, and still not being able to produce anything decent, that would be shameful. The OP isn't looking to produce pro-level results, so pro-level kit is a bit overill really. A current new camera, even if a much lower tier model, will still be ok for having fun with, and may have things like 4K video etc, which could be fun to play with too. As for getting frustrated with the limitations of more basic kit; why not let someone learn themselves? I think that could ultimately be far more beneficial in the long run really.

If you wanna help, then apply some consideration and empathy. Don't be flexing your own ego. It's unseemly.
 
Don Fischer said:
A camera is no more than a tool. It's the photographer that get's the photo's! it ain't the tool, it's the mechanic!
Click to expand...

Until you want to shoot an evening game under training lights, or a match that starts at 15:00 in December/January. In which case the abysmal ISO
capabilities of the camera bodies suggested by Andrew will let you down.

Sometimes, quite often in sport, it really is about the kit as well as the photographer's skill.
 
Abdichoudxyz said:
A current new camera, even if a much lower tier model, will still be ok for having fun with, and may have things like 4K video etc, which could be fun to play with too. As for getting frustrated with the limitations of more basic kit; why not let someone learn themselves? I think that could ultimately be far more beneficial in the long run really.

If you wanna help, then apply some consideration and empathy. Don't be flexing your own ego. It's unseemly.
Click to expand...

So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting the the OP spends the same amount of money or more on kit that is less suited to his purpose?
 
DemiLion said:
So if I understand you correctly, you are suggesting the the OP spends the same amount of money or more on kit that is less suited to his purpose?
Click to expand...
No; I'm saying that someone in that position might be better off buying something a bit simpler than a pro-level camera, which they can then use for other sorts of photography as well. And video, if they so desire. Something they might want to take for holidays etc. You're just suggesting they buy what YOU would choose. Which is fine, but they aren't you.
DemiLion said:
Yes but one born out of experience with over twelve years of shooting top flight and grass roots sport.
Click to expand...
Fine, but I have over 30 years experience shooting all sorts of subjects with all sorts of equipment, from large format 5x4 and 8x10" cameras, to smartphones. Andrew Flannigan has a lot of experience too. Your experience isn't the be all and end all. And neither is ours. For a start, your example of a photo was shot on a huge 500mm lens. Are you suggesting that the OP invest in such kit, to get some pics of their daughter's rugby? A 500mm lens is going to cost quite a bit. What if they decide they're not that into such photography?
DemiLion said:
Until you want to shoot an evening game under training lights, or a match that starts at 15:00 in December/January. In which case the abysmal ISO
capabilities of the camera bodies suggested by Andrew will let you down.
Click to expand...
How realistic a scenario is that though? Might be for you, but will it be for others? And most current cameras have pretty good low light performance these days. Plus; a crop sensor camera will offer more reach for a given focal length. So maybe even M4/3rds would be better?
 
It's all academic now anyway. As the OP seems to have gone with a Canon 1Dx. So perhaps that will be the perfect solution?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top