Beginner Newbie looking for advice.

Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
#1
I am starting to get into photography and am looking for a WIFI DSLR camera, I will be mainly using it for sports action photography, anyone got any recommendations?
Budget under £500 if possible but I would be happy with secondhand.
Thanks.
 
Messages
965
Name
Jamesev
Edit My Images
No
#2
I am starting to get into photography and am looking for a WIFI DSLR camera, I will be mainly using it for sports action photography, anyone got any recommendations?
Budget under £500 if possible but I would be happy with secondhand.
Thanks.
what camera setup are you using?
 
OP
OP
H
Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
#3
I’ve got an old canon power shot sx10is, I have started using it to take photos of my kids playing rugby. I had a Nikon F60 in the late 90s that I never really used so I am an absolute beginner.
 
Messages
515
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
#4
Im a newbie so others will be able to give more info but from my recent research into DSLR - for £500 you would be looking at Nikon D3400 or Canon 1300D in the new options which come in £3-350 and would then want an additional long lens like a 70-300mm which on the cheap option can be had around £100 used. Not sure about the Canon but the nikon is blue tooth rather than wifi. Why do you need this.

Second hand options im not in a great spot to advise but im guessing a Nikon D5000 range might be available or at a stretch D7000 range.
 
Messages
757
Name
Daniel
Edit My Images
No
#5
Can't go wrong with a Nikon D3400! I have the 3300 and had to buy the wireless adapter for £50 recently and it works great however the 3400 has it built in! Great camera for a beginner!
 
OP
OP
H
Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
#7
I wanted WiFi so I can access the photos via my phone without using a computer, if there are other ways maybe it’s not essential that it has WiFi, I use the WiFi on my GoPro all the time and thought I would miss it if the camera didn’t have it.
 
Messages
1,970
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
#10
You want sports action photography of your kids playing rugby so you need a fast focussing camera and a zoom lens with a decent range within a budget of £500.
Go on to MPB Photographic they have used Canon 7d,s for £350-400 and Tamron 18-270 Zooms for around £150.
Read up on the camera and the lens-google is your friend
That will do you quite well for the job you want-in an ideal world you would be having the latest kit and top of the range fast ( constant f2.8 ) "L" glass but we don't live in an ideal world .
 
OP
OP
H
Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
#12
Right I may have upped the budget a bit, what are people’s thoughts on the Nikon d7200? Also any links or cheapest place to buy one would be greatly appreciated too.
Thanks.
 
Messages
3,364
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
No
#14
Messages
1,088
Name
Mike
Edit My Images
Yes
#15
Back up, and dont get tied up in 'must-have- technology.....

Fast-Focus zooms?!?!? Yeah... however did I manage, to get pictures of my little bothers or own kids sports days and such with a manual focus film camera?

TECHNIQUE beats TECHNOLOGY every time....

Wi-Fi? What on earth is wrong with a cable? It's cheap, its reliable, and you dont need to set up the ruddy camera, router and computer to make dang thing 'just' work!
Next, why on earth would your preffered viewing device be a Smurf-fone? Diddy little screen with pretty mediocre resoloution, wobbling about hand held.. why go to the expense and hasstle of uploading pics from a camera to look at them on one of them... why not just use the ruddy back-screen!??!?
Storage? 'Free' space on t'cloud?.... err.. yeah, something I am even more sanguine about... I don't like having my preciouse data on a 3rd party hard-drive that's not actually 'free' and not in my control..... I shred a conventional hard drive, I know that's my fault..... hosting co gets a cimputer-cold.. and it's out of my hands!!!

A-N-D SD cards, in comparison to what you are paying for the camera, even portable-pocket-hard drives, are relatively speaking incredibly 'cheap'.. even if you do wish to host via 3rd-party server, I'd keep a copy on my HDD or an SD any-way..... Any 'faff' editing and sizing to suit 3rd-party hosts file limits etc, and or 4th party 'viewing', best done on dedicated computer from base files, where you have the tools to edit as you wish and resize and re-compress, not on a mini-screen smurf-phone, on the fly.....

Brings us back around... how much REALLY is all this over-sold technology REALLY worth?

Only actually any good to you IF it actually makes life 'easier'.... not makes more problems than it solves......KEEP-IT-SIMPLE-SILLY!!!.... Dont get bogged down in all-the-gear.....

You need a camera...you need a subject, the rest is 'detail'. Dont get lost in the woods looking for the trees.

You 'think' you 'need' a lot of zoom, but again, its a cheap trick, getting 'impact' from cutting clutter, and making the subject promient in the frame.... go to a seasons worth of kiddie matches... shuffle them up, then show me the photo's and tell me who was playing in any one of them, when you have 1200 'portaits' of your kid, all looking very dynamic. but with little else in the frame to give the picture meaning, context or relevance.... yeah, not only who were they playing, where were they playing..... even if you CAN tell me.... you HAVE to tell me! It's NOT in the picture!!!!
.
Rack-OUT, shoot wide... get the FULL picture, get the context, get the relevance in the frame.. get more photo, not more impact, that IS sorry, rather wasted after about the ninth photo of your child grimacing in a soccer strip.... you want portraits of your off-sprog... dress'em in that strip, take them to the park... you don't even need a ball, let alone the rest of the team, and you can get as close as you want and tell them how to pose for you, to get the same, nay 'better' photo's with the same amount of content, meaning and relevance!! Shoot wiode, get the full picture, don't get lost in the letter-box of 'impact' and 'effect'.

A-N-D with 20odd million mega-pixies on a modern widgetal camera.. that you are PROBABLY going to have to down-size enormously to maybe 1-2 mega-pixies, for web-host/web-display, which is STILL more pixies than you get on a small-screen display like a smurf-fone.. you have PLENTY of 'head-room' to crop a picture down to get the 'framing' you would have from a longer lens, and STILL have more pixies in it than you would a resized for web-host or small-device display.... IF that 'impact' really is important and worth-while to sacrifice context for.

For what you suggest... as said, I think I did pretty OK years back with a manual focus film camera, with pretty restrictive 'short' zoom, or even fixed focal length prime or compact....

Technique over Technology.... you really do NOT need an awful lot of technology or features or gadgets, and those you DO buy, really aught to make life easier, to do the things you really want, NOT harder.

Almost any DSLR of the last decade, will have more than enough mega-pixies; you really do NOT need an enormouse lens, and Wi-Fi?!?!?!?

Spend more time thinking about the pictures, less about the gear... A-N-D you go watch your childling play soccer... its supposed to be about the childling, being there to see them aught be enough; shouting some encouragement from the side-lines, aught me more than enough.. faffing with cameras, to get moaned at by a soccer mum, whether you have the managers written permission, and a Child-Protection-Act indemnity form, to NOT see your child score that once-in-a-life-time victory, IS rather defeating the whole point of being there...

If you had NO camera..... you wouldn't 'loose' photo's... you cant 'loose' what you never had... so anything you do get is 'bonus'.. soyou dont throw the caker away to lick the mixing bowl.... Remember its supposed to be about the child-ling, Not you, not your photo's,. not your fancy camera......

ANYTHING pretty much will 'do'.. even nothing at all... JUST being there, and paying attention, should be enough.....
 
Messages
556
Edit My Images
No
#16
I wanted WiFi so I can access the photos via my phone without using a computer, if there are other ways maybe it’s not essential that it has WiFi, I use the WiFi on my GoPro all the time and thought I would miss it if the camera didn’t have it.
Get a smart card reader for your phone or tablet. I have one for my iPhone and works well, allows the transfer of RAW files when some cameras only allow transfer of JPG over WIFI

Re Camera choice, what do you feel is the problem with your current camera ?
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
H
Messages
21
Edit My Images
Yes
#17
Back up, and dont get tied up in 'must-have- technology.....

Fast-Focus zooms?!?!? Yeah... however did I manage, to get pictures of my little bothers or own kids sports days and such with a manual focus film camera?

TECHNIQUE beats TECHNOLOGY every time....

Wi-Fi? What on earth is wrong with a cable? It's cheap, its reliable, and you dont need to set up the ruddy camera, router and computer to make dang thing 'just' work!
Next, why on earth would your preffered viewing device be a Smurf-fone? Diddy little screen with pretty mediocre resoloution, wobbling about hand held.. why go to the expense and hasstle of uploading pics from a camera to look at them on one of them... why not just use the ruddy back-screen!??!?
Storage? 'Free' space on t'cloud?.... err.. yeah, something I am even more sanguine about... I don't like having my preciouse data on a 3rd party hard-drive that's not actually 'free' and not in my control..... I shred a conventional hard drive, I know that's my fault..... hosting co gets a cimputer-cold.. and it's out of my hands!!!

A-N-D SD cards, in comparison to what you are paying for the camera, even portable-pocket-hard drives, are relatively speaking incredibly 'cheap'.. even if you do wish to host via 3rd-party server, I'd keep a copy on my HDD or an SD any-way..... Any 'faff' editing and sizing to suit 3rd-party hosts file limits etc, and or 4th party 'viewing', best done on dedicated computer from base files, where you have the tools to edit as you wish and resize and re-compress, not on a mini-screen smurf-phone, on the fly.....

Brings us back around... how much REALLY is all this over-sold technology REALLY worth?

Only actually any good to you IF it actually makes life 'easier'.... not makes more problems than it solves......KEEP-IT-SIMPLE-SILLY!!!.... Dont get bogged down in all-the-gear.....

You need a camera...you need a subject, the rest is 'detail'. Dont get lost in the woods looking for the trees.

You 'think' you 'need' a lot of zoom, but again, its a cheap trick, getting 'impact' from cutting clutter, and making the subject promient in the frame.... go to a seasons worth of kiddie matches... shuffle them up, then show me the photo's and tell me who was playing in any one of them, when you have 1200 'portaits' of your kid, all looking very dynamic. but with little else in the frame to give the picture meaning, context or relevance.... yeah, not only who were they playing, where were they playing..... even if you CAN tell me.... you HAVE to tell me! It's NOT in the picture!!!!
.
Rack-OUT, shoot wide... get the FULL picture, get the context, get the relevance in the frame.. get more photo, not more impact, that IS sorry, rather wasted after about the ninth photo of your child grimacing in a soccer strip.... you want portraits of your off-sprog... dress'em in that strip, take them to the park... you don't even need a ball, let alone the rest of the team, and you can get as close as you want and tell them how to pose for you, to get the same, nay 'better' photo's with the same amount of content, meaning and relevance!! Shoot wiode, get the full picture, don't get lost in the letter-box of 'impact' and 'effect'.

A-N-D with 20odd million mega-pixies on a modern widgetal camera.. that you are PROBABLY going to have to down-size enormously to maybe 1-2 mega-pixies, for web-host/web-display, which is STILL more pixies than you get on a small-screen display like a smurf-fone.. you have PLENTY of 'head-room' to crop a picture down to get the 'framing' you would have from a longer lens, and STILL have more pixies in it than you would a resized for web-host or small-device display.... IF that 'impact' really is important and worth-while to sacrifice context for.

For what you suggest... as said, I think I did pretty OK years back with a manual focus film camera, with pretty restrictive 'short' zoom, or even fixed focal length prime or compact....

Technique over Technology.... you really do NOT need an awful lot of technology or features or gadgets, and those you DO buy, really aught to make life easier, to do the things you really want, NOT harder.

Almost any DSLR of the last decade, will have more than enough mega-pixies; you really do NOT need an enormouse lens, and Wi-Fi?!?!?!?

Spend more time thinking about the pictures, less about the gear... A-N-D you go watch your childling play soccer... its supposed to be about the childling, being there to see them aught be enough; shouting some encouragement from the side-lines, aught me more than enough.. faffing with cameras, to get moaned at by a soccer mum, whether you have the managers written permission, and a Child-Protection-Act indemnity form, to NOT see your child score that once-in-a-life-time victory, IS rather defeating the whole point of being there...

If you had NO camera..... you wouldn't 'loose' photo's... you cant 'loose' what you never had... so anything you do get is 'bonus'.. soyou dont throw the caker away to lick the mixing bowl.... Remember its supposed to be about the child-ling, Not you, not your photo's,. not your fancy camera......

ANYTHING pretty much will 'do'.. even nothing at all... JUST being there, and paying attention, should be enough.....
Errr thanks for that advice on the d7200! After doing a bit of research I came to the conclusion that this would be a good midrange camera that will be future proof medium term for me, that I can buy new lenses for as I go.
 
Top