Best Sports Camera

Looking for best camera (point and shoot or DSLR) for shooting

baseball and soccer games as well as family pictures. Mostly

outdorr, but would also like to shoot recreational basketball

games. Any suggestions? Looking at Nikon D50 and Canon Rebel XT.

Any thoughts are greatly appreciated

Ron,<br>

This is a pretty broad question. However, I wouldn't go with either of the cameras you listed. Neither has the autofocus ability or frame rate you'll need to do a good job at baseball or soccer.</p>

 

I shoot with a D2H and love it. Best sports camera I've ever had. However, I wouldn't recommend it for the sports <i>plus</i> general use you describe. To me, it sounds like a D200 is a good bet for your purposes. It has a an improved AF system over the D100/D70s and will shoot 5 fps, enough to do a very good job for most sports shooting you're likely to do.</p>

DZ

On the canon side, I would say the same. The auto focus on the Rebel is slow in low light conditions. I would step up to the 20D if your going to shoot a lot of sports. I own the Rebel XT, and the 20D. The 20D has a larger viewfinder, and has better auto focus, coupled with 5 fps. You can do it with a Rebel, or D50, but the D200, or 20D would suit you better for sports. You will also want a fast lens for indoor basketball. A f/2.8 or faster.

 

Mike

Going with D50 or XT will make you a "single shot" shooter instead of a series of shot in few seconds of peak action. It's a good descipline to learn how to anticipate best capture, but you'll eventually want D2's or 1D II for superior auto focusing and frame rate for higher yield.

"Going with D50 or XT will make you a "single shot" shooter instead of a series of shot in few seconds of peak action"

 

The Rebel XT is rated at 3 fps (Probably a little bit of a stretch) and has Predictive AI Servo Focusing. You will not be restricted to single shot shooter. If you can afford the D2's, Mark II, then go for it, but that probably isn't what your looking for.

 

Mike

Mike, with all due respect, if going with D50, indeed you'll be limited to capturing the single, ideal shot. 3 fps ain't going to cut it for multiple frames, based on my <a href="http://success.shoreline.edu/athletics/new_page_1.htm">hands on</a> experience, IMHO.

MIKE:

You have some great soccer photos! Can you tell me a little about them: Are you shooting from the sidelines, or goal area? Are the photos full-frame or cropped? Last one, the lens you use most of the time? Thanks

Sorry, I meant the above for Wilson.

Why do people insist on struggling with consumer digi bodies!!! You need a minimum of a Cam1300 autofocus drive and a f/1.4 lense!

 

I just left a major high school tourney and the pro shooter selling images was using the D1H (yes! the 3MP nikon digi body) and doing very very well. He had strobes and the whole nine yards.

 

Digital choice on a budget... a D1H or D1X can be had for roughly $1000 in Excellent condition from Keh.

 

If it were my money, the best combination for indoor sports like basketball is the F100 and an 85mm f/1.4 or a second choice F100/50 mm f/1.4 combo.

 

You can buy perfectly good, expired 800 speed Superia on Ebay for $1 a roll and develop it to a CD at Sams or CVS for $6.

 

I was going the D200 route and sold off my F100's for a D200 I can't locate. Santa brought me a D70 to hold me over and it was a joke at shooting basketball.

 

Check out my gallery. Those were taken with the F6/85mm. I just deleted a dozen or so similar shots with the F100. Tommorrow I'll develop four more rolls including a post tourney dunk contest.

 

$700 gets you a mint F100 on Ebay and a 50mm f/1.4 and you will nail the image 7 out of 10 times. Same lense and a D70, maybe 3 out of 10 if there is little movement.

 

$7 a roll is worth the expense to achieve near professional quality images. Otherwise you are wasting your time with Dreb/D70 class bodies.

I think I will reload some F100 shots so you can have a realistic idea of what I mean.<div></div>

In the late 1930's a top "sports camera" was the Rollei TLR. It was a radical machine with a fast F3.5 lens; sports finder, and quick load and crank. It is just as fast today too. What has happened is the TLR's users got old, stoggy, and many cannot even get good focus using a tripod with a static object. Here I used A TLR for sports photos while in highshool; or an Exakta 35mm slr. There was no Nikon F yet. The next generation that comes won't be able to use a Canon EOS for sports, since it will be deamed "impossible" by experts down the road. The best sports camera varies with the era. The camera one uses really doesnt matter, the image you produce does. An editor wants results, not camera specs.<BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-517.jpg"><BR><BR><img src="http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y148/ektar/RolleiSportsAdverts/tripods-516.jpg">

I've taken some nice images with my D70 but it is a struggle. Slow AF, 3FPS are two limiting factors I'd rather not deal with. I'll show you one of my good D70 shots.

oops sorry about that. Now you know why I shoot film because I'm computer illiterate. I'll post a D70/F100 examples in my gallery.

Robbie, D70 is actually quite capable even for indoor, <a href="http://success.shoreline.edu/athletics/newpage12.htm">low light situation.</a> Sure, <a href="http://success.shoreline.edu/athletics/volleyball_photos.htm">D2X</a> is great for action (as well as AF in F100, F5, D1X, etc.,) but the <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=294182">D70</a> can really be pressed into action, when push comes to shove, IMHO.

Eric, thanks for your kind words about the soccer pix. I usually hover around corner kick area. A bit to the endline to get advancing strikers, back toward the side for keeper and field action. A bit of front light, a whole lot of back light. Varieties are key, IMO. 300 f2.8 for soccer for most of the time with 80-200 f2.8 on another body for closer action. Mostly full frame with a few slightly cropped. <a href="http://success.shoreline.edu/athletics/soccer_photos.htm">Here's</a> the ladies' game.

For indoor sports I can't live without a f/1.4 lense of some type. Last night I used primarily my 85mm, though some were taken with the 50, I also think I got some great ones with my 28, right under the rim. We'll see later when I get the film developed.

 

For me, it is a struggle shooting with the D70. A lot more hit and miss than with a Nikon F body. The pro I saw yesterday reccommended the D1 series Nikon. I'm not up on the specs, but I'm sure I recall CAM1300 AF, and a better viewfinder.

 

My point is why struggle, when for the same amount of money you can get a nice semi-pro setup and do a better job.

 

Once you start nailing the shots it becomes addictive. I guess my F100 spoiled me :)

 

Either way film or digital it is expensive.

Nice shots by the way!

Hi Wilson - I own the D70 and have a D200 ordered.

 

I am an passionate amateur � I have 2 daughters who play sports mostly in poorly lit gyms and the D70 is not cutting it.

 

My lens of choice is the 70-200 VR and was planning on purchasing 85mm 1.4

 

to try to achieve better results. I have notice the price drop in the D2h and now

 

have been agonizing to cancel my D200 and purchase the D2h just to shoot sports. I can keep the D70 as a 2nd body.

 

I am a little worried about the 4mp because of my camera skills at this point.

 

 

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated

I use the 20D to shoot sports, and it has never let me down. You could pick up a used one at a good price. If you look at my home web page, which is on Sportsshooter.com, all of the images you see on the main page and hidden galleries were taken with a 20D.

Point well taken Kelly :)

The D2h is a great camera for sports/ action/low light. I use several. My experience with the D70 is that it gets in the way of how I work and that is totally unacceptable for a tool.

 

For film my choices are the F5 and F3, each of which has a high enough frame rate to capture sports/action. Dont have any experience with a F100.

 

The 4mp file size from the D2h has not been an issue for me. I have gotten great 11x14's out of it. ( 2 page spread).

 

Team the D2h up with a fast lens - my must have lenses include the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.4 These two lenses will cover most of your indoor short field activities. For soccer and baseball a longer zoom such as a 80-200 should be added to your bag

 

A D1h is also good. I use these as wireless remotes. The camera has the speed you need.

The one blessing I see about digital, and not talked about much is what it has done to yesterdays pro film equipment. Whether it be Hasselblad or the F5, it has made professional level results and images available to serious amateurs, beginning amateurs alike.

 

I just got back from shooting three rolls 120 Pan 50 of my wife with my Bronica GS1. My developing skills are poor so I'm antsy to see the results. But I will have to wait and pay the price.

 

I mentioned the F100 because I was thinking budget. ($350-400)

 

The F5 ($600-750) would be the best choice because the 8fps. I've shot them all and F5 is THE BEST vlaue in film cameras. Still the king of Nikons IMHO. My minty F6 be damned. Better meter than the F100 as well.

 

One of the images in my gallery (shot with my F6) was the last in what would have been a great series of shots. Only one decent one because his hand was blocking his face from the camera in three other shots. So when the one clean shot you get with the D70 is good, is it the one you wanted?

 

I'm addicted to shooting sports and the lense has as much to do with success (possibly even more) than the camera body. But take the F5. Once a 2-3K camera now selling for pennies on the dollar. Why struggle with slower AF, dimmer viewdinder when the F5/F100 are being sold for $.25-30 cents on the dollar?

 

Digital is not that much cheaper. For a father shooting his children's basketball game a roll or two a game may add up, but the results will blow away the D70 class DSLR in the long run.

 

The F5/F100 (plug in Canon counterpart) will still be shooting when my D70 is a paperweight.

 

I appreciate the discussion and for those of you who took the time to read my passionate/opinionated posts, and I hope others will find it helpful.

Indeed ladies and gents, points very well taken. If one has access to D1H, D2X, and a 20D for that matter, more power to ya, but still, we'll be able to use Rollei TLR, D70, etc. for sports or whatever if one chooses to. Yeah, my F100 is still waiting for me to play with it and yes, it'll still be a fine piece of equipment in 2020, and so will my FM2n. Lets just hope films will still be available 15 years from now! Meanwhile, I'm still mourning the passing away of dearly beloved <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EVHU">Canon A80 <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2608164">(an example.)</a> Could an A620 be on its way? ^_^

Randy T., if you had already ordered a D200, perhaps just sticking with that and keep it simple. The D200 can be readily used as an all around body (more compact for travel with built-in fill flash.) You have necessary equipment to start out shooting a game competently, IMHO.

Hey Ron,

 

Someone suggested getting a used 20D. That sounds like a good idea. I got my 20D used for $900. It was only 2 weeks old. I shoot a lot of sports with it and I think it's great. Image size is fine for what I need and the FPS rate is not as fast as the top of the line models but I can live with it. I've been trying my hand at lighting basketball games so the frame rate doesn't come into play. My strobes take 1 second to recycle to full.

<a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com/rolandsimmons">Here is some images</a> that I shot with my 20D and 2 strobes.

 

Would like to hear what you decide. Keep us posted.