Keen Amateur- Sports Equipment

cornishboy

cornishboy

Messages
578
Edit My Images
Yes
Spoke on a previous thread about the requirements for a keen amateur. I would like to shoot all sports throughout the year but don't realistically have enough cash for a top of the range Nikon / Canon. Which body and lens would be most useful without a remortgage ? (Up to £500?)- (I also have a number of children and a wife to feed!)
Can an older kit produce the required photos? I have a d2h and a d40 - should I trade it all in or buy a better lens?

Sorry so many questions
 
cornishboy said:
Spoke on a previous thread about the requirements for a keen amateur. I would like to shoot all sports throughout the year but don't realistically have enough cash for a top of the range Nikon / Canon. Which body and lens would be most useful without a remortgage ? (Up to £500?)- (I also have a number of children and a wife to feed!)
Can an older kit produce the required photos? I have a d2h and a d40 - should I trade it all in or buy a better lens?

Sorry so many questions
Click to expand...

you can get decent shots with a d2h
your not going to get much in the way of a new body with £500
i suggest a second hand Nikon 80-200 f2.8 afs ( aprox £500 ish ) and then you can get a 1.4x or something?
 
your not going to get much in the way of a new body with £500


Blimey thats depressing - thanks for the advice on the lens though
 
in theory upgrading a body from your d2h to something like a d300 or d700 your looking at £700 - £1300
so keep the d2h and get a nice bit of glass, i use to 80-200 af-s f2.8 , got it off here for less than £600 and its a great lens and not far off the quality of the £1000 + 70-200 VR which ive also owned.
 
Yup, buy a good second hand lens in the 70-200/2.8 range and learn how to work round the limitations of your bodies. Find out the max iso you are happy to use on each body and work out which body's autofocus works best in different situations. If you can also get a cheap fast prime (50/1.8 maybe) see how you can use that in sports too - not every shot has to be a close-up of the play, sometimes a wider view works.
 
ianmarsh said:
If you can also get a cheap fast prime (50/1.8 maybe) see how you can use that in sports too - not every shot has to be a close-up of the play, sometimes a wider view works.
Click to expand...

I ahve thousands of pounds worth of lens in my kit.. yet the 50 1.8 as mentioned above thats worth what.. 60 quid? gets used quite a lot for indoor sport on important commisioned jobs....Deffo good call by Ian :)
 
I have a D60 and now thanks to a fellow TPer a D300s, and I've noticed the image quality change dramatically, but cannot do a direct comparison until I shoot my next u16 footie match.

I chose a Sigma 100-300 f4 with a 1.4 TC if I need a little extra length (which hasn't come out of the bag yet).... I've also noticed there's one on sale here as well for £560
 
Have got a Nikon f4 and by 3.30 on a Saturday the light is just too bad on my D2h. I guess the next step will be a f2.8 - I am interested in the different body debate, and how some people say changing the camera body will make a big change whereas others say change the lens
 
Shooting rugby at 4pm on a December afternoon with a D300s and using 3200 to 6400 with a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 and struggling, so if your camera's cant get any higher than 1600...which I dont think they do....then you will need both body and lens, which I said before, I was told to do by the sports togs on here, so I did it because there was no other way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cornishboy said:
Have got a Nikon f4 and by 3.30 on a Saturday the light is just too bad on my D2h. I guess the next step will be a f2.8 - I am interested in the different body debate, and how some people say changing the camera body will make a big change whereas others say change the lens
Click to expand...

It works both ways, swapping from an f/4 to an f/2.8 lens is going to allow you to double either your shutter speed or ISO :)

Upgrading the body to can allow you more room to play with.

Upgrading body and from f/4 to f/2,8 is ideal.

Unfortunately its all down to the ££££ and your looking at £1-2000 minimum for a body that can handle above 3200 and pushing £1000 for a 70-200 f/2.8
 
Rovers_Andy said:
....Unfortunately its all down to the ££££ and your looking at £1-2000 minimum for a body that can handle above 3200 and pushing £1000 for a 70-200 f/2.8
Click to expand...

Now where have I heard that before....oh yeah, just before I went skint :LOL:

I wouldn't change anything though.

Merry Christmas lads.
 
Have a look at these before you start listening to the lash out loads of cash brigade all taken with either a Canon 400D or 350D and a Canon 70-210 f4 (£60 from a camera fair) and Tamron 70-300
Yes if I had the money I would get f2.8 lenses and bodies with tha ability to shoot at 6400ASA but you can get good results with more modest equipment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainpenguin/sets/72157624724245282/
 
So have any of your photo's been taken under floodlights between say 3 & 5pm over the last couple of weeks?, when it has been almost pitch black.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CaptainPenguin said:
Have a look at these before you start listening to the lash out loads of cash brigade all taken with either a Canon 400D or 350D and a Canon 70-210 f4 (£60 from a camera fair) and Tamron 70-300
Yes if I had the money I would get f2.8 lenses and bodies with tha ability to shoot at 6400ASA but you can get good results with more modest equipment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainpenguin/sets/72157624724245282/
Click to expand...

and how many of those have been taken in poor light conditions? they all look to have been taken in good daylight to me
 
Rovers_Andy said:
and how many of those have been taken in poor light conditions? they all look to have been taken in good daylight to me
Click to expand...

Read what the OP said he is an amateur who wants to take shots and is on a limited budget,if he is going to be shooting say amateur football at grounds that have no floodlights the matches kick off at 2.00 so even in the depths of winter he will be able to get some shots.

And re my shots anybody knows that with my kit I will not get professional results under lights but the following were taken at a floodlit match


http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainpenguin/sets/72157624064502284/with/4608788778/
 
cornishboy said:
Spoke on a previous thread about the requirements for a keen amateur. I would like to shoot all sports throughout the year but don't realistically have enough cash for a top of the range Nikon / Canon. Which body and lens would be most useful without a remortgage ? (Up to £500?)- (I also have a number of children and a wife to feed!)
Can an older kit produce the required photos? I have a d2h and a d40 - should I trade it all in or buy a better lens?

Sorry so many questions
Click to expand...

CaptainPenguin said:
Read what the OP said....
Click to expand...

We did read what the OP said...as highlighted in red...and he will not be able to shoot any sports in poor light conditions without the right equipment....FACT.
 
AFC said:
We did read what the OP said...as highlighted in red...and he will not be able to shoot any sports in poor light conditions without the right equipment....FACT.
Click to expand...

This could get silly but as you have pointed out he wants to shoot Throughought The Year not 24/7.

But seriously can we look to give the guy some advice to suit all eventualities without slagging each other off and prove that TP is the friendly place it says it is.

So if he has the cash definately go f2.8 and quality high ISO performance if not show him that there are useable alternatives
 
Whoa - didn't want to cause a war!!

I need to shoot under floodlights - games kick off a 3pm but I can access all areas as a member of the committee. My quandry is that with a max £500 budget I could try to buy a lens - f2.8 recommended or I could change the body - I dont think I can do both at present.
Some people have said the D2h is good enough and comes with some nice additions as an ex pro camera, but I cant work out if the body of a more up to date, but technically lower spec, camera would have a better ability to cope with low light.
I also have seen the sigma 70 - 200 but people have said it was crap, and then someone goes and says I should get a 50mm prime!!

No wonder I am confused!!
 
Personally I'd say you are better off going for a 2.8 lens over a new body if you can only choose one or the other. IMHO at least having the 2.8 means you can get up to decent shutter speed and get the shots in the first place. Not much use having a body that you can use up to (and beyond?) ISO 6400 but are still restricted to only f4 as this won't get you decent enough speeds under crap lights (even 2.8/6400 hasn't been enough for me when doing a non-league game at times). You can always look into noise reduction to help until you can get a new body.
 
cornishboy said:
Whoa - didn't want to cause a war!!

I need to shoot under floodlights - games kick off a 3pm but I can access all areas as a member of the committee. My quandry is that with a max £500 budget I could try to buy a lens - f2.8 recommended or I could change the body - I dont think I can do both at present.
Some people have said the D2h is good enough and comes with some nice additions as an ex pro camera, but I cant work out if the body of a more up to date, but technically lower spec, camera would have a better ability to cope with low light.
I also have seen the sigma 70 - 200 but people have said it was crap, and then someone goes and says I should get a 50mm prime!!

No wonder I am confused!!
Click to expand...


Without spending £1200 + your not going to get a camera that can cope with low light football. Especially with a F4 lens that you already have.
Get a 2.8 lens, the 2 stops makes a difference in poor shooting conditions
Your going to need to keep the lens wide open at 2.8 and shoot at 1600 on your D2h, anymore and you'll see alot of grain. And play about with the shutter speed, not going too low
 
Its a chicken and the egg situation really. As Steven (Aperture87) has said 2.8/6400 can be a struggle in really awful lighting conditions and I can vouch for that as this is what I was shooting at my last rugby game and I was getting a shutter speed of 250th sec.

I think the D2h only goes up to 1600 and even with a f/2.8 you really will struggle to get any decent shutter speeds, but it is a step in the right direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've just got the sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex hsm II, which I use for indoor sports (equestrian) and it's utterly superb (don't get this confused with the older and not so good mk1). This hooked up to your current body will produce stunning results and can be had new for just over £600.
 
Last edited:
cornishboy said:
Whoa - didn't want to cause a war!!

I need to shoot under floodlights - games kick off a 3pm but I can access all areas as a member of the committee. My quandry is that with a max £500 budget I could try to buy a lens - f2.8 recommended or I could change the body - I dont think I can do both at present.
Some people have said the D2h is good enough and comes with some nice additions as an ex pro camera, but I cant work out if the body of a more up to date, but technically lower spec, camera would have a better ability to cope with low light.
I also have seen the sigma 70 - 200 but people have said it was crap, and then someone goes and says I should get a 50mm prime!!

No wonder I am confused!!
Click to expand...

Right then, now we've got the penguin out of the way with the requirement to shoot under floodlights...i'd suggest reading both parts of the tutorials listed in my signature...obviously the second part is of particular interest as it deals with equipment.

I've tried to outline what you might like to consider with your kit, not giving reviews and recommendations on particular items, that's for two reasons;
1. Nikon/Canon etc. I use Canon, and I have no idea about Nikon.
2. Different people have different preferences...some like to use primes, some use zooms etc.

So what i've tried to do is give you an overview of the sorts of things you might like to consider when buying kit.

If you haven't got much to spend, then you need to spend wisely. Spend wisely by reading through the tutorials, looking at whats available and for what prices, and then go and try them out. If you're in Cornwall, there's lenspimp.com or our very own lensesforhire.co.uk will deliver down there. Rent one for a game, give it a try, and then buy.
 
CaptainPenguin said:
Have a look at these before you start listening to the lash out loads of cash brigade all taken with either a Canon 400D or 350D and a Canon 70-210 f4 (£60 from a camera fair) and Tamron 70-300
Yes if I had the money I would get f2.8 lenses and bodies with tha ability to shoot at 6400ASA but you can get good results with more modest equipment

http://www.flickr.com/photos/captainpenguin/sets/72157624724245282/
Click to expand...


Totally agree with this.

You do not need the very top equipment to shoot SPORT throughout the year.

There lots of sports that take place midday and very early afternoon in the winter, they have too, because it's dangers to do Cross-country running, fell racing , cyclo-cross, BMX, canoeing and so on in the dark.

The OP never said which sport.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
whiteflyer said:
Totally agree with this.

You do not need the very top equipment to shoot SPORT throughout the year.

There lots of sports that take place midday and very early afternoon in the winter, they have too, because it's dangers to do Cross-country running, fell racing , cyclo-cross, BMX, canoeing and so on in the dark.

The OP never said which sport.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you ought to read the entire thread before coming on and having your stuck record style pop of "all sports doesn't just mean football". We know you shoot athletics and we know all sport isn't just football.

However, the OP has clarified that he;
a) wants to shoot football
and b) needs to shoot under floodlights.

It's this constant bloody whinging and bleating from people that is really seriously putting me off coming on here any more. It's already made me avoid "talk photography" and "out of focus"...if it spreads to here then that's the final straw. :bang:
 
I did miss the one post where the OP mention games under floodlights. :shake:

Not a Nikon user myself, but suspect the the D2h was the top or very near the top of the range at one time, so you would be able to get the shots the pros did then, if you had the lens. I did do a flickr search for D2H Sport and came up with a good selection of shots (not many soccer as I suspect most are USA based)

So it's the lenses where money would more likely be better spent.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
odd jim said:
I've just got the sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex hsm II, which I use for indoor sports (equestrian) and it's utterly superb (don't get this confused with the older and not so good mk1). This hooked up to your current body will produce stunning results and can be had new for just over £600.
Click to expand...

Could you rent one of the sigma 70-200 f2.8 ex hsm IIs and see how you get on?
 
I'd like to thank everyone for their input on this thread. Having spent some time on TP, I think it is clear it is a broad church with a range of members all who have differing needs. There are clearly the pros who probably need the latest equipment and would answer my query with an expensive list - then there are the very keen semi pros who probably make some money from photography and then there are the hobbyists, who even then break down into the amount of disposable income they can afford to spend on the game.
I think it is clear that to shoot effective photos under floodlights at football matches you need an f2.8 lens - however if you dont have one, or cant afford one what are the other options? Is it, for instance, more cost effective to buy a f4 and a copy of photoshop and then adjust the levels to produce something useable?
What about buying kit that the pros were using 5-7 years ago? If it was good enough for them then would it not still be capable today for club websites / locally produced programmes etc - I am not talking about photos for the national press.
Finally what about buying a manual focus lens and trying to learn that way as that may be a cheaper option?
Perhaps I should start some new threads - what kit do you recommend for a budget of...£500 / £1500 / £2000+ and then let people gravitate towards the budget area which suits their pocket.
Again thanks for the advice it has been an interesting read so far - long may it continue
 
cornishboy said:
for instance, more cost effective to buy a f4 and a copy of photoshop and then adjust the levels to produce something useable?
Click to expand...

I cant undertsand why all these sports photogrpahers are telling you f2.8 and you still keep going back to f4?

get the sigma 70-200 f2.8 there cheap used and within your budget... thats it? the perfect answer...

next? :)
 
jamesb84;3266692 It's already made me avoid "talk photography" and "out of focus"...if it spreads to here then that's the final straw. :bang:[/QUOTE said:
sad day if that happens lots on here look upto you and many others for inspiration, advice and common sense.

Maybe the mods can create a smilie, with huge wads of money to give a short sharp answer to people who think the pro's must have a short cut secret, no way do people really invest that much money in taking pics ;)

I tried the cheap and cheerful route, it gives cheap and cheerful results. Slowly investing in better gear to get better results.
Click to expand...
 
Perhaps you could read the whole post...... - as you say all the pro sports photographers are telling me to buy a f2.8 and I would aspire to do so at some point...however many people reading the posts may not be able to afford such an outlay - I may not have that money at the moment - so I am seeking alternatives which will allow me to produce photos for a club website / programme without spending a huge amount of cash.
The answer cannot always be spend more money - there must be alternatives even if it is - shoot until half past three and then go and get a cup of tea!
 
cornishboy said:
Perhaps you could read the whole post...... - as you say all the pro sports photographers are telling me to buy a f2.8 and I would aspire to do so at some point...however many people reading the posts may not be able to afford such an outlay - I may not have that money at the moment - so I am seeking alternatives which will allow me to produce photos for a club website / programme without spending a huge amount of cash.
The answer cannot always be spend more money - there must be alternatives even if it is - shoot until half past three and then go and get a cup of tea!
Click to expand...

You said you had a budget up to 500 quid.. you have an answer up to 500 quid.. are you saying if i read the whole thread I will see somewhere that you change it to no budget or less budget..

and you should get off your high horse mate.. your not the only one with wife and kids to feed.. I started with a kodak digital and worked my way up to what i have.. i wouldnt suggest or expect anyone to go out spending wads of money and you shouldnt presume others have..

But my first dslr lens was the sigma 70-200 f2.8 it cost me around 650 quid many yrs ago.. i checked before posting and you can get them around 400 now and thats within your budget

try not presuming so much and maybe you will realise some people are trying there best to offer decent advice based on experience... but if you insist on getting an f4 lens then go for it.. your money sunshine :)
 
Hi. I notice that the OP said he had a 70-300mm f4-5.6
D40 - lens that comes with kit . I started with a 70-300mm IS f4-f5.6 for my Canon. I'm sorry to say that looking back it just didn't cut the mustard. I debated about whether to get a 70-200mm IS f2.8 or a f4. I got a f.28. I think it was worth every penny. Only the OP can judge how serious he is about what he wants to do. You can only do what you can afford. I understand where you are coming from. All I can say is that I think the standard of the photos I am taking has improved drastically, the quality of the images used in the programmes and posters and other advertising material has improved the image of the club, and my portfolio. There are other club photographers who can't afford new kit. Sometimes they get really great pictures and I'm pleased for them. But they also suffer from under-exposed, slow shutter speed and digital noise. Hell, I still get that in poor lighting conditions too, so how much harder is it with a slower lens? Photoshop can't fix all of those things. You will just have to adapt to and live with the limitations you have until you can upgrade. As Kipax said, get a 50mm 1.4 or perhaps an 85mm 1.8, they are affordable. Learn to work with those. Happy shooting.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top