Keen Amateur- Sports Equipment

I have read the complete thread a few times now !

I think all the advice you have been given is good solid advice.
You will soon learn by you own mistakes...Mistakes that may have a cost implication !.....Better to take the advice from these seasoned guys...You might make less mistakes that way and also get to where you want to be just that little bit quicker.

Tug
 
Cornishboy, I'm not a sports photographer but I have had a go shooting kids in the summer it is relatively easy I have also done something else which is a more challenging situation. Its all about getting a shutter speed fast enough to freeze the action resulting in a sharp image and framing the subject correctly that can be used in print. Kids don't move that fast, bright sunshine allows you to have a high shutter speed no problem even at f/4. I have the canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS focus speed is fantastic and remember your shooting moving targets so you need good quick focusing That is where f/4 can/will let you down never mind up at f/5.6 on your 70-300mm lenses.

Now step things up a little, your now shooting adults playing, they move a lot quicker even at amature level so getting the fast shutter speed to freeze the action is going to need more light that extra stop of light from an f/2.8 lens will make a difference again summer is fine but football is a winter sport and light isn't always that good even at 3pm.

Now add the flood lights, if your shooting at Old Trafford or the Emirates then the lighting I suspect is very good and even all over the field of play, step down a division or maybe one of the newly promoted clubs lighting could be a little patchy? never mind going to a non league club with 20 candles in each corner with kitchen foil reflectors. Getting those higher shutter speeds is either going to push your kit to its limits and possibly result in poor image quality due to high ISO or you won't get the shot. This is the reason the pro's spend the cash on the f2.8 lenses and the Nikon D3's or canon 1Dmk4 as they know when they need to they can push their ISO up to and beyond 6400 without a problem so they can freeze the action. It has been demonstrated that a good lens on a not so good body is better than a poor lens on a decent body, also remember that good lenses depreciate a lot less than the bodys they are also replaced less often buy 2nd hand and you will probably not loose very much.

I spent some time with a great sports photographer just chatting and he said something along the lines of never be afraid to push the ISO if you need to to get the shot getting the clear image is all that matters, blur or out of focus is no use to anyone. The next time I shot in challenging conditions my images were far better than my first attempt. (they were just for personal development BTW and never saw light of day)

I am currently saving for a 300mm and yes it will be the f2/8 version
 
Last edited:
This isn't the first time that Kipax, Andy, James and all the other pro togs have been asked these questions and it wont be the last.

I was asking the same questions a few months ago after I found that my Sigma150-500 f5 - f6.3 was no good for poor lighting conditions.

I was trying to get around it by asking if I took raw shots could I lighten them in PS and many other ideas that came to me, and everytime, especially Kipax kept coming back saying 'You need a f/2.8 and thats it. But I couldn't afford it.

I did manage to get the money together and bought the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 and I am only on DLA and medically retired.

Then I went to my bank and asked if I could top up my loan that was running and they said yes, so I got enough money to get myself a Nikon D300s.....and saved myself £12 a month on the repayments.

Thanks for letting me bore you all, and thanks to all the pro togs for their advice, because by taking their advice I have actually seen my shots in the local papers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AFC said:
...... because by taking their advice I have actually seen my shots in the local papers.
Click to expand...

You know what I want to ask in response to that, don't you?? :D

I've got to agree with those suggesting 2.8 100%.

I normally centre my interest around equestrian sport outdoors, for which you'd think that the light would be fine with an f4, but there are frequently times when it isn't, especially when trying to maintain a minimum shutter speed of 1/6-800.

The fact that I don't have any long reach 2.8 is the primary reason why I'm not photographing any sport during the winter months, because quite frankly I'd rather not take any photographs rather than take crap ones (in comparison with my usual stuff).

It's not a question of the working pros recommending expensive lenses because they are blasé about the cost. You just have to read some of their post history to see how hard some of them have worked to get the right kit for the job. They're recommending it because it is the minimum standard of equipment required to get usable images in any given situation.
 
One thing that's not been mentioned already is the fact that sports photography is the hardest and most expensive type of photography going - and for good reason! The conditions the OP wants to shoot in are the most challenging for the photographer and the kit possible, ie trying to freeze fast moving action with low light levels. This is why the kit us so crucial to the task - you wouldn't enter a formula 1 race in a formula 3 car as it simply would get the results. This is why f2.8 telephotos are used by sports togs (alongside other lenses) as it's the best kit for the job.

As per my previous post, look at the Sigma 70-200 f2.8 EX HSM II. New at £600, 2nd hand a bit less and within your budget. You wont look back and it'll bring a lease if new life to your current body.
 
Last edited:
I sed to be in exactly your position, taking pics of football and airshows in often less then ideal lighting.

I also had a D2h with a 70-300 F4.5-5.6

Personally i found that my glass was a little short so I went with a new body and picked up a D2x as I managed to get one without parting with much on top of what i got for the D2h. Why get the d2x when feeling a little short in the length? Well a 400mm Nikon would have cost a fair old wad of cash and at least with the D2x I can crop abit.

Now with hindsight I got rid of the D2x as the ISO was not useable past ISO 400, which in the poor lighting that I suspect that we both have to cope with just wouldnt cope with it.

At this point i had just brought a 70-200 F2.8 VR1 as well and it was still abit of a struggle.

In order to keep the cost down on longer glass i invested in a couple of converters a 1.4 and a 1.7 to give the length and they both work very very well indeed.

I got a D300s for its higher ISO, aside from that i cant honestly say that i have noticed anything majorly improved.

If I had £500 in my pocket and was back in those days, I would sell the D40 and save cash for a 70-200 again. I tried the Sigma and just didnt like it. For the extra i just loved my 70-200 and would do that again before anything else.

If you are set on changing bodies, save abit of cash then sell the D40 and the D2h and buy a D300s with a grip :)
 
Little John said:
I spent some time with a great sports photographer just chatting and he said something along the lines of never be afraid to push the ISO if you need to to get the shot getting the clear image is all that matters, blur or out of focus is no use to anyone. The next time I shot in challenging conditions my images were far better than my first attempt. (they were just for personal development BTW and never saw light of day)
Click to expand...

Wasn't Mr-No-Card-Eamon was it? ;)
 
so you are looking to take photos for club websites/programmes - I assume and hope you are looking to make money - most of the time you have to spend money to make money, I suggest you take the advice you have been given
 
so you are looking to take photos for club websites/programmes - I assume and hope you are looking to make money - most of the time you have to spend money to make money, I suggest you take the advice you have been given

No - I am an unpaid volunteer and am doing this out of a sense of community spirit and a sense of pride in what I produce - I would suspect that the majority of sports teams in the country operate in the same manner.
 
cornishboy said:
so you are looking to take photos for club websites/programmes - I assume and hope you are looking to make money - most of the time you have to spend money to make money, I suggest you take the advice you have been given

No - I am an unpaid volunteer and am doing this out of a sense of community spirit and a sense of pride in what I produce - I would suspect that the majority of sports teams in the country operate in the same manner.
Click to expand...

That makes at least 2 of us,keep up the good work I know from personal experience that players and club appreciate it
 
but what about maximising your OWN opportunities?

Document every game and why not produce a wee book?

Some feel the way to the top is by shooting Man U week in week out. It is not. Show some balls and innovation, someone may then spot you.


If the lights are sooo bad, admit defeat before you have stated. Just get a 50mm 1.8 lens and be creative. You dont need full frame pictures like you see on the back of The Sun for a matchday programme - quite often programmes with creative images win the awards and that is the way to get noticed.
 
someone may then spot you.

Unfortunately I think I am past this - but as you say I am looking to produce a programme which is the best I can do and have taken on board much of the advice I have received so far. As the majority of the clubs programme is in b&w there may be some scope for using the f4 during the winter and adjusting levels in photoshop, just while I get up the courage to purchase that f2.8.

I am just hoping for the weather to clear so I can get on with taking some pictures
 
cornishboy said:
someone may then spot you.

Unfortunately I think I am past this - but as you say I am looking to produce a programme which is the best I can do and have taken on board much of the advice I have received so far. As the majority of the clubs programme is in b&w there may be some scope for using the f4 during the winter and adjusting levels in photoshop, just while I get up the courage to purchase that f2.8.

I am just hoping for the weather to clear so I can get on with taking some pictures
Click to expand...

24th November when we last played I've forgotten what a football looks like
 
cornishboy said:
someone may then spot you.

Unfortunately I think I am past this -
Click to expand...

Why?

My Local team where in the unibond and I was photogrpahing for exactly the same reasons you listed.. I had about as much money if not less.. I swapped, saved, did deals and worked up the equipment ladder... Things changed over the yrs as they tend to do... Luck and Dedication paid off.. Not just me.. lots of people have simmilar stories.


ADDYONBIT: The camera in my avatar on the left is what I saved for ages when i realised having no zoom on the kodak was holding me back:) then i came up against floodlights and realised this one held me back..
 
Last edited:
Why?

Not through any lack of interest, but age and the fact I am fully engaged in the teaching profession would stop it going further than a hobby -but I am hugely impressed by anyone going from here in non league to the top of the tree - how did you go from totally unpaid to earning some money? Did you get your non league photos published nationally? Forgive me if there is a thread on this but am genuinely interested
 
I find age a poor excuse :) But if you ahve a good steady job you like doing then thats a good reason.

I got lucky,.. my local team rose from non league to football league and I rose with them.. although i do get told off for saying i am lucky... luck didnt make me sit on a cold wet touchline freezing for years with little or no interest by anyone in the pics... the better the team got.. the more interest in the pics esp from local media
 
PeterCollins said:
I sed to be in exactly your position, taking pics of football and airshows in often less then ideal lighting.

stuff...

If you are set on changing bodies, save abit of cash then sell the D40 and the D2h and buy a D300s with a grip :)
Click to expand...

best buy atm is a second hand D300. You can pick them up for under £650 on here... they share the same AF as the D3! Very good camera.

bash a £40 ebay grip and a £20 7dayshop battery on and you've got 8fps too, and they're completely happy up to iso 1600, and still not complaining too much at 3200 if needs must.
 
I was a amateur ( kind of still am!) and started with a Canon 300D and a 90-300, Every upgrade since then I did for a reason, It might be better if you can also think of a reason why you want to upgrade.

I'll run through mine. I started just shooting for myself, never really planned to send them to papers or anything

Canon EOS 300D( most basic canon SLR you can get for a low price ) -> Canon EOS 20D the AF, FPS and Write speeds were shocking, not good for a sports photographer, the 20D had better AF 5 FPS and a lot quicker write speeds and a bigger buffer.

Canon 90-300 -> Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 I was getting annoyed by the busy background in photos due to the f/5.6 aperture and also the AF speeds/tracking were slow, the 70-200 was a spur of the moment thing, cheap but in good condition and nice and sharp!

Canon 20D -> Canon 1D MKII I upgraded after getting frustrated with my 20D's slow FPS and inaccurate/slow AF, I noticed this one day when shooting a dog running towards me, I knew I needed an upgrade and a saw a 1D MKII at a good price, I ignored the 40D etc cause I knew they wouldn't solve my problem, just make it slightly less of a problem.

Sigma 100-300 f/4 I needed a longer zoom as the 70-200 f/2.8 wasn't long enough, I looked into my option and it was between this and it's much more expensive f/2.8 brother, which I read in some reviews wasn't sharp at f/2.8.

I decided to save some (a lot) money and get the f/4 and have been pleased with it ever since,
Just an example of semi-pro gear vs amateur gear below, I'd like to think there's a difference:

20D 90-300:


1D MKII 100-300



My point is, you've got pretty professional cameras, and you haven't really given a reason why you want to upgrade?
 
Last edited:
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...

same with me so my dad said get a 300mm f4 with a d3 set up the foucsing should be fast enough :)then when i get better and start getting pictres i hope in local paper (well try) then move to the 300 f2.8 so i can get used to using a 300 fixed :)
 
Last edited:
taffy047 said:
same with me so my dad said get a 300mm f4 with a d3 set up the foucsing should be fast enough :)then when i get better and start getting pictres i hope in local paper (well try) then move to the 300 f2.8 so i can get used to using a 300 fixed :)
Click to expand...

You can get an old nikon 300mm 2.8 for a similar price to an f4, bulit like a brick and very reliable and quick enough for footy.Had mine for a good few years bought second hand.
Sold it on here for 500quid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top