Beginner Choosing A Camera for Sports Photography

Messages
4
Name
Jarlath
Edit My Images
No
#1
Hi,

I'm new to the forms so please be kind of I've posted this in the wrong place.

I am very keen into Soccer and I run a team in the Uk. I recorded most of our games in 1080p video on my phone edit them and upload them to YouTube.

I am now looking to start taking photos of each game and upload them to social media sites. I would like them to be as professional as possible, while keeping the price below £500 (GBP).

I'm not quite sure on ISO, Sutter Speed & Lenses.

I would totally appreciate any help, links to camera etc to get me started ASAP.

Thanks in Advance
 
Messages
7,926
Edit My Images
No
#2
Hi,

I'm new to the forms so please be kind of I've posted this in the wrong place.

I am very keen into Soccer and I run a team in the Uk. I recorded most of our games in 1080p video on my phone edit them and upload them to YouTube.

I am now looking to start taking photos of each game and upload them to social media sites. I would like them to be as professional as possible, while keeping the price below £500 (GBP).

I'm not quite sure on ISO, Sutter Speed & Lenses.

I would totally appreciate any help, links to camera etc to get me started ASAP.

Thanks in Advance
That budget imo is quite low for your requirements. Even doubling on that budget is really stretching it
 
OP
OP
Jarly
Messages
4
Name
Jarlath
Edit My Images
No
#3
Would there be a good camera around that price, with a standard lens that might be usable until I can get a better lense like a 70-200mm f/2.8 in the future
 
Messages
84
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
No
#5
You could look at something like the Nikon Coolpix P900. It doesn't have interchangeable lenses. But, the built-in zoom covers a wide range (24mm to 2000mm) and it is within your price range (when bought new). Most manufacturers make similar cameras at this price point.

As already mentioned, a DSLR (or mirrorless) camera is likely to be outside your price point, especially if you need to buy a telephoto lens. For football, you will need to be getting to the 200mm range (or longer). Even the least expensive lenses that cover this range (e.g. the Nikon 70-300mm AFP Fx version) would absorb most of your budget. You could look at something like a Tamron 70-300mm lens (£130) and Nikon D3500 (£420) which might be OK. Canon (and other manufacturers) should have similar items.

If you are comfortable with the used market, the prices would come down and you could get better gear. But, buying used can be problematic YWNV

For good quality action shots, you will need a shutter speed around 1/1000 sec or faster. Depending on lighting, this will likely push your ISO up to 800 or higher which can be an issue with quality in less expensive cameras.

Our local pro football club offers members of my photo club the opportunity to attend games with media passes (2 people per game). They take pictures from field level and share the images with the club. The club members show up with all their gear. No cost tot he club. You might consider a similar set-up with your club. Unless you relish that challanges of taking the images yourself :)
 
Messages
7,950
Edit My Images
No
#6
Setting aside the lowish budget?

Football covers a wide spectrum?
Indoors and/or outdoors?
Full size pitch or 5 a side sort of size?
Edit ~ plus as @ancient_mariner says about the time of day???

As in all things photography kit wise, context is very important;)
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Jarly
Messages
4
Name
Jarlath
Edit My Images
No
#7
Setting aside the lowish budget?

Football covers a wide spectrum?
Indoors and/or outdoors?
Full size pitch or 5 a side sort of size?
Edit ~ plus as @ancient_mariner says about the time of day???

As in all things photography kit wise, context is very important;)
11 aside men's soccer. Outdoors mostly grass sometimes 3G & very rarely night time games underfloor lights .
 
Messages
8,421
Name
wayne clarke
Edit My Images
Yes
#9
You can pick up a half decent used DSLR for around the £300 mark thats reasonable in low light, the Nikon 3400 or Canon 750d are both pertty good up to 3200 iso. (better below it though) The lens I'd look at tamron who do a decent 70-300 SP around the £350 mark or their budget version is about £150-ish I think. Sigma also do a similar decent and budget version of the same lens.
 

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015
Messages
8,481
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#11
I'm not quite sure on ISO, Sutter Speed & Lenses.
A couple of other things to consider with sports are Autofocus speed/accuracy and how many frames per second (FPS) the camera can shoot. In terms of lenses there are a lot of people on here with much more experience than me but for shooting my lad playing Rugby I find that a 70-300mm lens on a crop sensor body is a good range (that's effectively 112mm to 480mm). Sometimes I could do with longer or shorter but that covers a lot of the action.
 
Messages
995
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#13
I don't see much of a problem here unless I'm missing something.

Obviously we're looking at a starting point, but a Nikon 70-300VR just sold in the classifieds for £165. Mated with a D7000 or 7100 (or similar) you would come in under budget. I shot Motorsport and a friend's Rugby games with a similar combo for a good while. Looking back now, with better gear, I'm still pretty happy with the images from that time.
 
Messages
7,950
Edit My Images
No
#14
I don't see much of a problem here unless I'm missing something.

Obviously we're looking at a starting point, but a Nikon 70-300VR just sold in the classifieds for £165. Mated with a D7000 or 7100 (or similar) you would come in under budget. I shot Motorsport and a friend's Rugby games with a similar combo for a good while. Looking back now, with better gear, I'm still pretty happy with the images from that time.
And taking this suggestion in context of what @Jarly refers to as professional images I will read as "quality" images.

Whatever he chooses he undoubtedly will have potential to produce images of 'a quality'......it just depends on whether satisfies him and his team members?

@Jarly if, as you imply you have never used a combo of a dSLR and medium telephoto zoom lens, please bear in mind that you will need to practice, practice & practice with it some more. Why? well other getting suitable kit even at a starting level it is you that will taking the pictures..... so you will need accept the likelihood of many pictures that do not "satisfy you" that frustration is part of the joy of Photography in general ;) :LOL:

Best of luck with whatever you choose to buy and enjoy the learning experience :)
 
Messages
995
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
And taking this suggestion in context of what @Jarly refers to as professional images I will read as "quality" images.
That was the assumption I made too, based on OPs involvement with the team, and the kind of use suggested for the images.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,402
Edit My Images
Yes
#16
i happily managed for a season with a D5100 and sigma 70-200 F2.8, i would imagine roughly £300/£350 for this combo, I've just gone through lightroom and heres my focal length from the last game (probably cropped but i can tell that)

135, 116, 98, 70, 70, 86, 105, 200, 86, 102, 98, 105, 116, 120, 100, 185, 70, 70, 85, 125mm just to give you a slight insite into type of range you need.

i will move around a lot, i don't much take pictures from the halfway line, so more byline or edge of the 18yd box.
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#18
It's very easy to think you need to have the latest this and that but at the end of the day if you concentrate on the basics you can get by with surprisingly little money. My advice would be a second hand Canon 40D or Nikon D200, These should come in for less than £100 and I've used both. They're well up to action pictures on the field. For a lens I'd stick with the camera manufacturer's 85mm (typically below £300 for either make). When you outgrow the camera the lens will still be excellent.

You need speed and simplicity so a zoom is a distraction in this sort of thing. Just get used to following the action around and be prepared to crop out the image you need in some cases. I used to do matches for the local papers with a Tele-Rolleiflex which had a fixed lens roughly equivalent to 85mm. It worked surprisingly well for a camera that was to speed as a tank is to GP racing. :naughty:

Here's an ancient shot from that outfit...

SoccertackleCrediton.jpg
 
Messages
26
Name
Mart
Edit My Images
No
#21
Totaly agree 85 is to short you need a long lens and a wide aperture unless your going to pack up when the clouds come over.
 
Messages
7,926
Edit My Images
No
#23
Sports photography is one of if not the most expensive type to get into. We are not overreacting when we say stuff like you needing a 200mm etc etc. This is for the basic stuff
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#24
Things have moved on since I did this stuff for money but what I wanted to show is that you don't have to spend a fortune to get started - although to be fair the Tele-Rolleiflex was in fact a seriously expensive camera in its day (the equivalent of about £4,600 today). The argument that you 'need' a 200mm lens is open to doubt as my experience shows. What you do need is to understand the game, understand what the viewer wants to see and understand when the best opportunities will occur. I think that Jarlath has all that and simply wants to know what will help him realise those advantages.
 
Last edited:
Messages
7,926
Edit My Images
No
#27
Things have moved on since I did this stuff for money but what I wanted to show is that you don't have to spend a fortune to get started - although to be fair the Tele-Rolleiflex was in fact a seriously expensive camera in its day (the equivalent of about £4,600 today). The argument that you 'need' a 200mm lens is open to doubt as my experience shows. What you do need is to understand the game, understand what the viewer wants to see and understand when the best opportunities will occur. I think that Jarlath has all that and simply wants to know what will help him realise those advantages.
You can shoot sports with a fish eye if you wanted but like that you are severely limited.

200mm will be fine for the op. 85mm again will limit the op.
 
Messages
1,221
Edit My Images
No
#28
85mm again will limit the op.
Given that it worked for me and that was what I pointed out there's not really a discussion to be had here, is there?
 
Messages
7,926
Edit My Images
No
#29
Given that it worked for me and that was what I pointed out there's not really a discussion to be had here, is there?
Do you have a gallery of photos I can look to see your results?

Where exactly was you standing?

How did you get shots of players from the middle of the field? Or from the other side of the pitch where the other wingers are?
 

KIPAX

Seriously Likeable
Messages
20,264
Name
KIPAX
Edit My Images
Yes
#34
Messages
13,055
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#35
Im not the one who has shot an entire game with an 85mm.

So back to my question Andrew. What other shots you have? How are you able to take a shot from the other corner flag?
I don't think the OP here wants to be a pro sports photographer, he just wants pro quality images on a budget. Maybe suggest what you think might work within the budget instead of nay saying? How did sports photographers manage 10 years back? The gear they used at the the time would still do the job today right? So what did you use back then?
 
Messages
7,926
Edit My Images
No
#36
I don't think the OP here wants to be a pro sports photographer, he just wants pro quality images on a budget. Maybe suggest what you think might work within the budget instead of nay saying? How did sports photographers manage 10 years back? The gear they used at the the time would still do the job today right? So what did you use back then?
Pros 10 years ago where using tele lenses though.

I'm not saying the op goes out and buy a 400mm F2.8. Infact all I'm saying is to grab the cheapest 200mm ish lens and pick up a cheap body to start off with like the Canon 4000d that someone linked already.

85mm is way too limited imo
 
Messages
2,773
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
#37
I think what people are forgetting is even a cheap second hand combo (some good examples above) will be far (and I mean far) superior to the cameras that took the majority of award winning sports photos in the last century.

Again another needlessly over complicated set of responses to a simple question on these forums.
 
Messages
13,055
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#38
Pros 10 years ago where using tele lenses though.

I'm not saying the op goes out and buy a 400mm F2.8. Infact all I'm saying is to grab the cheapest 200mm ish lens and pick up a cheap body to start off with like the Canon 4000d that someone linked already.

85mm is way too limited imo
I'd agree that 85 is too limiting, but so it a 200mm. It is a zoom OP needs I think, for flexibility. A 70-200 2.8 is probably the most ideal, someone said a Nikon body with Sigma 70-200 2.8, that sounds good as Nikon are better for ISO performance than Canon, but good luck getting a decent combo with a 70-200 under budget.


A couple of good camera suggestions there. I would add a canon 55-250 if you go the canon route. It’s great lens for the price

This is a great little lens, light, small, has OIS and very good IQ even at 250mm @f/5.6 - being so cheap [HDEW have them new for £129] allows you a little more leeway for a body. Something like an SL2 perhaps? Only problem with this lens is AF is sluggish and does hunt at times so you may miss vital shots.

Rainy days? the light doesn't just get swallowed into the abyss! Push to ISO 3200 where needed, any modern camera can handle this and look into post processing. There's plenty of free programs out there so you can at least perform a little noise reduction.
 
Last edited:
Messages
13,055
Name
Keith
Edit My Images
No
#39
I think what people are forgetting is even a cheap second hand combo (some good examples above) will be far (and I mean far) superior to the cameras that took the majority of award winning sports photos in the last century.

Again another needlessly over complicated set of responses to a simple question on these forums.
Recommend something then, this is what the OP asked
 
Top