best camera sports photography

i want to get a digital SLR for a lot of action shots can anyone tell

which is the best digital camera for action shots please

Canon 1DMKIIn

Canon 1D Mark II N

8.5 FPS

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1dmkiin.asp

In all honesty, there is only one best at the moment and that is the 1D MkII (with or without N): The fastest focus logic and processor, the most reliable focuser, the largest focus area, 8.2 MPix and 8.5 fps, fully weather proof, accumulator can manage over 1000 photos, 1.3 crop is good compromize between required focal length and finder clarity, low noise even at high ISO figures, ISO range 50-3200. It's a tool.

I've been very happy with the 20D--less than half the price. No, doesn't have comparable

features, but more than adequate if you don't want to spend upwards of $3500. Spend it on

good lenses.

For those of us on a very limited budget, will the 30D and its 5 FPS be a good compromise or its just not a good option?

 

Andres

The 20D does not do well in low light. The 5D would be a better option.

For $1600, the Nikon D200 is your best bet. It has everything the Canon 20D has and it has sealed buttons to be used in inclimate weather with sealed nikon lenses. The Canon 5D is a great camera, but not for sports photography. It's only 3 frames per second and is a full frame camera (thus, there's no multiplication factor for you zoom lenses)

Consider Nikon D200, Canon 20D and 30D. Before these cameras came out the 1DII was the only answer. You don't NEED 8 fps to shoot high paced sports! You are wasting your valuable time and memory space firing your camera like a machine gun unless you want to specifically create a sequence presentation, and how often are you going to do that?

<I>You don't NEED 8 fps to shoot high paced sports! You are wasting your valuable time and memory space firing your camera like a machine gun unless you want to specifically create a sequence presentation, and how often are you going to do that?</I>

<P>

Whoah now, Nelly, that depends on what you're shooting. For Trevor's purposes, since he is apparently just starting off, you might be correct. For a pro, that is utter balderdash.

<P>

Yeah, I struggle along and get some pretty good, salable professional boxing (and other sports) shots with a D70. But I have to work mighty hard to get a few goodby good, I mean professional-qualityshots at each event. If I could afford an 8 fps camera, I would jump all over it in a heartbeat.

<P>

It's not about shooting a whole sequence. It's just that, say, when some pro boxer, with mighty quick hands, lands a solid punch, there is only a fraction of time in there where the best possible image occurs. Being able to squeeze off several shots in succession vastly increases your chances of being able to catch that magic instant.

<P>

Not only that, the autofocus system on a lot of the lower-end DSLRs is much slower than the higher-end bodies, and the viewfinders on many of them (like my D70) suck as well.

<P>

You still have to know what you're doing with a really expensive body to get great shots, but<I>if</I> you know what you're doingyou can use one of them to greatly increase the number of good shots you get each time out. I estimate, conservatively I think, that a DSLR with great autofocus, high frame rate, and pro-quality viewfinder would at least triple the number of quality shots I come up with per event.

The focus logic is simply not up to the sports job in 10D, 20D, 30D nor in 5D. Anyone who has shot with any of these and with 1D or 1D MkII (N) knows the difference is huge. The second best sports camera after 1D Mk II is most likely Nikon D2h.<p>

In the mid range bodies Nikons have better focus abilities than Canon. The prosumer Canons are excellent bodies, but sports photography is not their strongest asset.

I've been trying my best to shoot indoor volleyball with a 300D and an old, slow Tamron Super Zoom, it isn't much good but since it was all I could afford that's what I used. I'm sure all of us would love to shoot with a 1D MKII but unless you are a pro or have plenty of money to throw around that is probably overkill. So I would suggest the 30D as 5 fps should be pretty decent (3 fps in 5D and 350D is way to slow for volleyball). Now I may have short term memory loss but I don't think anyone has mentioned lens' which are very important for sports shooting. I don't want to go into details but you need to factor a fast focusing large apeture lens into your kit for the body to be useful.

Juha has it right. I'm a dyed in the wool Nikon guy, but given the specs and Trevor's question (what is the <i>best</i> sports camera - not best for the money), the edge has to go to the 1Ds Mk II. When considering a sports camera, right behind the issue of image quality is that of autofocus capability.</p>

 

I shoot with a D2H and absolutely love it. It has the most amazing autofocus engine I've ever used. Shooting games with unpredictable action and players in unpredictable positions (hockey, soccer, lacrosse, etc.) the percentage of shots where the highlighted player is out of focus is definitely less than 5%, probably a lot less. I've never used a 1Ds Mk II, but have read that the D2H has the edge in autofocus capability. I can't imagine anything better than the D2H.</p>

 

Some say the 24 x 36 sensor on the 1Ds Mk II is an advantage, but in a sports camera this makes little if any difference. If anything, the 1.5x crop factor and added reach with telephotos is a plus in the D2H's column. </p>

 

However, even though I have little trouble with any limitations the D2H's 4MP sensor may present (NeatImage is a wonderful thing) the 1Ds's 8 mp and better high-ISO performance gives it the edge. The answer to Trevor's question has to be the 1Ds.

I think Dan meant the 1DII. I know it is so easy to drop or add a letter to these silly camera designations. The 1DII is a 1.3x body with 8 MP while the 1DsII is full frame and about 16 MP.

 

 

My keeper rate with motor racing, soccer, and swimming is about 60% with truly exceptional captures at about 15% but then I am focusing manually and never hold the shutter button down. However I do use the best possible glass. I rely on autofocus for volleyball but my keeper rate remains about the same - just that much more challenging to get right. I guess randomly firing a faster body might bring home one or two more in this particular instance.

Hey, John--

<P>

Not too be all argumentative, as you have made some good points, but no one is talking about "randomly firing a faster body." Remember, I said you have to know what you are doing. I wanted to emphasize this as, no matter what Trevor's budget, the best investment he can make is in learning and practicing his skills--regardless of which camera he eventually settles on.

<P>

In order to get the best performance out of any body, you need to be able to get your exposure right (even with digital), you have to know how to get the camera to focus on what you want to be prominent, you have to have a sense of composition, and--especially with sports--you have to be able to anticipate what is <I>going</I> to happen. Or you're going to be too late.

<P>

To get a good boxing shot (but this also applies to football, basketball, and most other sports as well), I have to <I>anticipate</I> when a fighter is going to throw a punch, and be ready to nail the shutter button. Now, my D70 doesn't have the fastest response time in the world, and because it will do only about three frames per second, I am realistically going to get only one shot during that punch. If I am a little too early or late (the latter often being more attributable to the camera), I'm not going to get the best shot--and that's assuming that the D70 managed to get what I want in focus, which is often a miraculous occurence. If I have done everything else right, being able to squeeze in an extra frame or two in an action sequence will often net me a winning shot. The faster and surer autofocus in a higher-end body would contribute greatly to that as well.

<P>

But again, the body is not the ultimate factor--as has been said millions of times, the photographer's most valuable piece of equipment is between his ears. Trevor should get the very best body--and lenses; if your budget is not limitless, that is indeed the very best place to invest your money--he can afford, master his technique, and learn his sport. Knowing where the play is going to, depending on the game situation and the tendencies of the teams/players involved, is also highly necessary to getting good shots.

<P>

But once you can do all that, a good body really helps. Otherwise, why would pros (who are concerned about <I>profits</I>, and who aren't likely to be wowed by a camera's bells and whistles) blow all that extra money on expensive bodies, if they could get what they needed with a D70 or a 30D? The answer is, they have <I>got</I> to bring back <I>very</I> good shots--no excuses--and the higher end bodies are the best tools for doing that.

Thanks, John. I DID mean the 1DII. In fact, about the only criticism you can make of the camera is its ridiculous name!</p>

 

For a great post on this, see <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006_02_01_theonlinephotographer_archive.html">The Online Photographer</a> and scroll down to "How Canon Chooses Camera Names". Mike Johnson nails this one.

Bernard, some equally good points.

 

 

Dan, I rather enjoyed that read though it took me awhile to find it. A few years ago when I first stuck my head into photo.net I made several comments about how Canon named their Digital SLR cameras in an extremely confusing way and was continuously shot down by spelling bee geniuses that insisted on defending Canon. Good to see the truth be told by someone, like minded of course. Canon is not the only culprit and now it is the lens names that are getting seriously out of control, as also mentioned in another article in that link.

 

 

Take care all.

Trevor:

I just started shooting my sons' sporting events. Here's what I bought at the advice of photo.net sports forum participants: A Canon 20D with battery grip (great addition), a Canon 70-200 mm f/2.8 L, a Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L, a 1.4x II teleconverter, a Canon 50 mm f/1.4, a Canon 85 mm f/1.8 (both for indoors). Make sure you get hoods with all lenses and UV filters, B+W if possible. A Canon 580 EX flash, two 2-Gig flash memory cards, and the lowepro computrekker plus backpack (gotta have a good bag). I've been getting great stop action shots with great color and clarity. Definitely invest the time to learn all aspects of the camera and buy some books on sports photography (Digital Sports Photography by G. Newman Lowrance), on Exposure, Composition, Flash Photography and of course Photoshop. By the way, I had great luck and got great prices from B&H Photo and Video in NYC.

 

Best of luck,

Bob

Trevor, you didn't say what sports you are planning on shooting... Indoor, outdoor?

 

Do you plan on manually focusing; or are you going to rely on autofocus?

 

In any case, the glass is the most important component, especially for indoor and nighttime shooting. If you are shooting at night, see "Need help - auto racing at night at the PIR" at:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00F7Fe

 

...Where I discuss lighting levels and color temperature.

I have a similar question. I'm an amateur (teacher) who takes sports pictures mainly for our school's website. What's the best burst mode out there on a camera that costs under $1000?

Chuck wrote:

 

 

"I have a similar question. I'm an amateur (teacher) who takes sports pictures mainly for our school's website. What's the best burst mode out there on a camera that costs under $1000?"

 

 

I can get you 8 frames per second with up to a 36 shot burst for $300; and get you superb indoor gymnasium photos as well!

 

 

Get a used Nikon N90s (not the older N90) for about $125 on eBay; then get a working Sony UY-S77 or UY-S90 minilab scanner, or a Kodak RFS3570 or RFS3570+ minilab scanner on eBay for under $200, which will slurp a roll of 36 frames of negs or chromes in about 3-5 minutes.

 

 

For indoor, shoot Fuji 800 speed color print film, which behaves nicely with HID gym lighting.

 

 

You may not even need a scanner: Ask around and find a parent who works in a drug store or other location that has a minilab, and get the film "soup only" which costs $1 - $2 per roll; and if they are a manager, you might even be able to get it scanned.

 

 

If not, Wal-Mart will give you "soup only" for $1.50 to $2 per roll (price varies by store); then bring it back and slurp it through your roll film scanner.

 

 

Bet you weren't expecting FILM for an inexpensive answer!