Cheapest camera to shoot sports?

[walterh]

<p>Hello - today I had to disappoint a colleague that a simple P+S camera he was about to get was not the right choice for shooting sports since too slow on AF and handling as well as too low on ISO. So now it is my turn to "offer" a better solution :-) Perhaps I was wrong?</p>

<p>He wants to shoot family sport 1) horse jumping competition on a regional scale and 2) ping-pong competition on a not so local level. It would not be a problem to miss a number of shots - all he needs are a few good ones per event - of course of one specific participant.<br>

I could easily put together a few things from my arsenal like a D3 with 70-200 f2.8 ^^ but the problem is that his limit is about a few hundred US$ equivalent.</p>

<p>All I can see is a used film-body like a F90 and a used 105 or 200mm lens.<br>

Any better suggestion? Is it possible with the budget?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>For sports, I wouldn't go the film route or he would be paying for film and processing like crazy. With a more limited budget, he just needs to settle for less-than-optimum AF.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>You can shoot sports or just about anything else with just about any camera. The key is in knowing how to use what you have. There are plenty of $500 digital SLRs today. Most have relatively slow autofocus. But AF isn't by any means necessary to shoot sports. If your friend is going to shoot horse jumping, manually focus on the rail that the horse is jumping, set the aperture small enough for some depth of field, and it's done. No need for AF. If he's going to shoot ping pong, manually focus on the player or even the net in the center of the table. Simple as that. No need to spend a lot of money.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>For sports shooting film means a lot of money in processing. Digital really is the way to go for sports.<br /> <br /> For a few hundred dollars.. I think a used Canon G10 is going to be it. I shoot Nikon film and DSLR but I think that Canon has gotten it right on their compacts. There are also some good 4/3s options from Olympus and Panasonic that offer pretty decent reach in a smaller less expensive package.<br /> <br /> If you want to get into a DSLR for sports you are looking for at least a D200 (for decent AF) and a used 80-200 f/2.8. You're getting into about $1,000 just for that camera and lens, which are getting pretty old by today's standards.</p>

[niccoury]

<p>You could get a D2H and a 80-200 f/2.8 for a decent price and during daylight, it would work just fine.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Ditto, Nic's recommendation for the D2H. Best overall value in an action-oriented dSLR. Just be sure you can accept the limitations: only 4 mp resolution; high ISO noise; occasional quirky colors under some artificial lighting. It's best at or below ISO 800 or in daylight; not so good at or above ISO 1600 or under metal halide lights.</p>

<p>If your friend prefers film, it's hard to beat Fuji Superia X-tra 800. That was my usual choice for indoor sports and other events when I needed color. And it's a lot less finicky than dealing with the D2H raw files, as long as the minilab does a good job. But your friend will need to be a disciplined shooter to make this economical. With film I'd limit myself to no more than six rolls per event. With digital I can shoot continually. I still use color film for events where I need only two or three rolls of 36 exposure, but I dislike digital editing. For someone who doesn't mind the process digital offers certain advantages.</p>

<p>And if your friend prefers film, the F90 should do fine, although I'd try to squeeze the F100 into the budget if possible.</p>

[tri-x1]

<p>All point and shoot-type cameras have too much shutter lag to use for serious sports photography.<br>

When shooting sports one gets a lot of images that are out of focus or blurred or don't catch the action at the right moment. For those reasons, digital is much more economical than film.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>The D2H is also a good option, they are just a little bit harder to find than a D200. I have run across D2Hs from reputable dealers for under $300 used.<br /> <br /> Also, I forgot to mention on the 80-200 f/2.8, you might consider the 2 ring version over the push-pull version (single ring for zoom and focus). I had the push pull version which has no tripod mount, which means it wasn't very compatible with a monopod.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Any decent P&S that can be manually focussed. Indeed the AF may be slowish on most, but if you can cut that phase out, it should be OK. Both sports mentioned should offer some time to manually pre-focus. So, also in that respect, any entry level DSLR will also do.<br>

(sure, AF is nicer, but when you know in which range the action will be, MF is not that hard)</p>

<p>Btw, shutterlag on the recent high-end compacts is not as bad as it used to be. The sole reason I would dismiss a compact for the use your collegue envisions is the fact that it is/might be indoors, and you would need relatively high ISO. Which on no P&S is going to look all that great. But something like a D40 or D3000 should be fine.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

Old D1h would likely be the cheapest DSLR to shoot sports with. It is limited to 2.75mp but I have many nice looking 8x10 inch prints that I have printed from D1 files the file size is not as limiting as it first seems. Battery life is poor if you have a bad battery but replacement batteries are not that expensive. It has a very fast interal AF motor and works well with older AF lenses. It is capable of 5 fps and can shoot up to 40 jpgs or 27 RAW files before the buffer is full. Overal it is a well made camera. The lenses are likely to be the real cost issue here though.

[alvin_lim5]

<p>Agree on the D2H(s) too. It is really good value at today's used prices. Well built, 8fps and small files to work with. But just need to note the "downsides" mentioned by Lex. Coupled with the 80-200mm f2.8 and a sturdy tripod, your friend should be good to go.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Oh boy - that was very fast for already quite a few comments.<br>

I have to check on ebay what is available here in Germany.<br>

Low Mpixel numbers do not scare me. I think the better viewfinder is the key because the images are for the active sports people and they want to see the critical moment.<br>

That is why I got that idea of using film because the hardware is so cheap. You are right about the film and development cost.<br>

Quite true about manual focus. I missed that point that in both disciplines one could pre-focus on a selected spot. Would a good PS like the Canon G10 be fast enough on the trigger to catch the right moment? Is the delay always the same if MF is used? I disregarded the PS cameras because I tried to shoot kittens and it was nearly impossible when moving. But this is really a different scenario.</p>

 

[elliot1]

<p>Craig got it 100% right! Keep in mind that for just a very few hundred dollars, a Nikon D40 can't be beat (around the same price as a new P&S) and will give great results both indoors and out. While you can do everything listed with a P&S, it takes a lot of effort to do so. A DSLR like the D40 makes it that much easier.</p>

<p><em>"All point and shoot-type cameras have too much shutter lag to use for serious sports photography." </em> Sorry, this is simply not true.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Walter, ping pong is typically played indoors. Even though the venue is well lit, the chance is that you'll still need a wide aperture and therefore the depth of field is shallow. During the game, the players move both forward/backward and sideways rapidly. Unless you restrict yourself to only capturing the player serving the ball or some non-action moments, good AF will be critical for shooting ping pong, or for that matter, most sports.</p>

<p>But if your friend's budget is limited, sometime you'll just have to accept that you'll have a low in-focus rate shooting sports. That was what people used to tolerate during the manual-focus era. Clearly not everybody can afford a D3S with the latest 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>on a budget? d200 or d2H. i'd probably go for the d200 myself, since it's a bit newer.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Well yes part of my question was if it is really possible to do within the budged. If not then the person will just have to wait until the higher budget can be met.<br>

D40 seems very popular and hard to find here. I guess the relatively low noise figure is too well known^^.<br>

Something along the lines of a D40 or D70 and a AIS tele like the cheap but good 135mm f2.8 is now high on the wish list. I could get the 135mm lens for ca. 70 Euro - nobody seems to want that range. It is no exceptional lens but a good lens. I own one but do not wish to sell it for such price ^^.<br>

As a temporary solution I offered a free shooting at one weekend but my D3 would stay in my hands ^^.</p>

 

[ShunCheung]

<p>BTW, Elliot, the EXIF data on your attached image above show that it was captured with a Nikon D70 with the 18-70mm/f3.5-4.5 "kit lens" at 40mm, not with a Coolpix 8700: <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00V6bo-194709584.jpg">http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00V/00V6bo-194709584.jpg</a></p>

<p>Was there some mix up?</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Walter<br>

D2h will fit the bill if you can find one in the price range. With jumping yes you get to pre focus but being able to shoot a burst of three is nice. That gives you the luxury of being able to pick the right moment. If they are going over larger jumps life is a little easer as there is more hang time.<br>

Also think about maybe a 180 f/2.8 AI. You might be able to find one at a good price and it is a very nice lens.<br>

I still carry my D2h as a backup to my D300.</p><div></div>

[bryan_lardizabal]

<p>Holga 120</p>

[ad12345]

<p>Hi Walter:<br>

A couple of suggestions that might just squeeze into your friend's budget - either the Nikon D5000 or the Pentax K-x. Both cameras have similar specs (4+ fps, 11 point autofocus, insanely good performance at ISO 1600 and above). <br>

The Nikon D5000 body and 18-55 lens kit will set your friend back about $800, while the body, 18-55 and 70-300 VR lens kit will set him back around $1,400.00. If that is too pricey, Tamron sells a very nice 70-300 3.5-5.6 Di LD lens that is quite sharp wide open to about 200 mm at f4.5. The approximate price of the a kit with the Tamron in place of the Nikon 70-300 is around $1000 (you do lose the VR feature with the Tamron, and the D5000 probably won't do any of the aberration correction on the Tamron like it will with the Nikon lenses). When combined with the amazing low noise characteristics of the D5000 this should be good for most outdoor and even some indoor sports. For extreme low light situations an inexpensive fast prime (35-1.8 or the 50-1.8) will give your friend even more flexibility.<br>

The Pentax which has a very similar sensor (perhaps even slightly better at high isos) to the D5000, sells for around $600 with a reasonably good 18-55 kit lens. Add the Tamron 70-300 and the total price is under $800. The features of the K-x are similar to the D5000, with the exception that the K-x uses AA batteries (rechargables or lithium) instead of a dedicated Li-ion. Some folks don't like that, but I find it handy in a camera to take camping or on other trips where there isn't a reliable source of power. I'm using Sanyo eneloops in the K-x I just bought with a spare set of Advanced lithiums in the bag as a backup in case the eneloops run out of juice. <br>

Pentax's autofocus system isn't quite as advanced as Nikon's, but is still able to get very high keeper rates on birds in flight and indoor show jumping (at least the with my older Pentax K20D, which has a similar if slightly slower autofocus than the K-x seems to.) Equestrian and table tennis shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of the Pentax AF system - football / soccer might be a bit of a stretch, although lots of folks post sharp field sport pictures in the various Pentax forums.<br>

A couple of advantages on the plus side for the Pentax are that both vibration reduction and autofocus motors are built into the camera, so that older or less sophisticated lenses can be used. Pentax also enables spot or centre weighted metering on older lenses - even going back to thread-mount or manual aperture bayonet lenses. The down side of the Pentax system is that there is a smaller range of high end lenses to choose from if your friend becomes addicted and wants to migrate up to pro quality bodies and glass. But if he ever becomes that that serious the value of his original kit won't even be equal to the VAT on a high end body like a D3 and one zoom lens like the 70-200VR.</p>

<p>Good luck with your search,<br>

Andrew</p>

[michael_oxford]

<p>did somebody say cameraphone?</p>

<p><a title="img612 by mikesnervousbreakdown, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/44650749@N04/4136441266/" title="img612 by mikesnervousbreakdown, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2516/4136441266_6428a60522.jpg" alt="img612" width="500" height="449" /> </a></p>

<p>... i know, i know, it really only can be considered remotely practical in an extremely well lit situation like this but hey, it's better than nothing.</p>

<p>On a serious note though, if you have Nikon, the D2H really has to be the best bet. An F5 would be good, but like was mentioned before, film costs would simply be too great unless your really looking to help save film. On the Canon side of things (where I shoot primarily now a days) there is the much loved 4mp EOS 1d - the camera I was actually using at this track meet. The AF on that camera is very, very good, and the resolution generous enough for displaying shots online (and from what I've seen done with a D2H, i think the same observations would apply).<br>

Something I jsut want to note concerning AF - a <em>good AF </em> system is the #1 reason i would forgo anything less than a pro body. I <em>hate</em> prosumer AF systems. They <em>never</em> work. And when your shooting track or gymnastics, basketball or whatever else has fast action, you <em>need</em> to have af that is quick and accurate. I cant say i've ever used a prosumer or amateur camera that would really be advantageous to fast action. Infact, i think it could be argued that fast autofocus is more important than frames per second simply on the basis that if you know it will be in focus you can time things out much better, and thus dont need to waste 10 frames on a shot.</p>

[john_liberty]

<p>If he only wants to spend a few hundred bucks, as in 2 or 3 hundred, he MIGHT be able to afford an older Canon Rebel or even a Nikon D50 w/ kit lenses. But they aren't very fast lenses, and if he does any indoor shooting his goose will be cooked. If he's ok w/ film, then he has better options. Even a MF film camera can be counted on to bring home several shots that are in focus from an outing, and he'll be able to afford faster lenses. Nice to have the fast film and fast lens if you're in low light and trying to capture movement. Any of the old MF cameras such as Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Minolta etc can be fitted w/ fast glass within his budget.</p>

[walterh]

<p>Thanks friends I will have a look at ebay with my colleague and see what turns up within driving distance.<br>

There is certainly a lot to discuss with him :-)<br>

Cheers<br>

Walter</p>

[fernando_scherer]

<p>D100, D300 and a 80-200 afs, or in dayligt a 70-300vr. for ping pong a shorter, like 35afs, 50..</p>