A good setup for sports photography?

[jason_conway1]

<p>I shoot car racing at the local dirt tracks and i am looking to buy new gear. I want to pursue sports photography as a career. What would be a good setup for all around sports shooting? What camera body? and what lens? Need short and somewhat long distance like 200mm. </p>

[photo_galleries]

<p>D3S and 200-400mm</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>Less expensive, yet professional results can be achieved with D300S and Sigma 120-300/2.8 lens.<br>

There are other options as well...<br>

Depending where you locate yourself in respect to the racing cars, possibly 70-200/2.8 VR lens would do.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>I agree, D300s and Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, add a Zeikos battery attachment and batteries that get the maximum frame rate from the D300s and you'll be cooking for a very good price.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Strongly depends on your budget. Body wise, D300(s) or D3(s) are the logical suspects; I would not go below a D300s on a dirt track (weather sealing is a nice idea under those circumstances).<br>

Lenses; which lenses do you use today, and do you miss length with what you use now? The suggested lenses so for are good choices, but on a DX body quite long maybe; possibly a 70-200 would be enough. But on top, all mentioned lenses are not really cheap either. So knowing your budget can make the recommendations a lot more useful.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I'm not a sports photography expert but I will nonetheless give a suggestion based on my limited experience (have shot <20 events entirely for my own enjoyment).</p>

<p>Body: either D300s or D3s/D700, depending on how important reach and low light are for you. First lens 70-200/2.8 II, second 300/2.8, 300/4, or 200-400/4, depending on how much money you have to spend on this, and how important it is for you to have the fastest focusing vs. being able to react and move quickly, and finally how strong you are ;-) You might also want to check www.sportsshooter.com content and forums.</p>

[elliot1]

<p>Others have described what would be considered great setups. They are also costly. Assuming you are currently on a tight budget, a very 'good' setup that will give you great image quality (equal to the options listed above) and also be highly affordable would be a D90 and Nikon's 70-300mm VR lens (VR version of this lens only).</p>

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>if you want to make it a career, you might as well start with the D300s. you don't really need a D3s for that. but you will definitely need an f/2.8 lens for that. you can't settle for less.</p>

<p>venues for dirt ovals are smaller than nascar-type races. the 70-200mm VR f/2.8 will do just fine on a DX body. on a budget, the sigma 50-150 will work, too. good thing about the sigma is when you go to the pits, and you only have one camera body, you don't have to switch lenses for closeups and groups.</p>

<p> </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Generally speaking, sports photography demand high-end bodies with fast AF and frame rate as well as fast long teles, especially if you are into night sports photography. You can easily spend over $10000 on just one body and one lens, as I see a number of high-end set ups have already been suggested.</p>

<p>Therefore, your budget limit is critical for an appropriate recommendation for you.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>For sports I'd suggest a full frame body, as Keith said the D3s would be top of the list - I absolutely love my D3 and virtually NEVER use my D300.<br>

Ideal lens line up would be 24-70 2.8, 70-200 2.8 and 400 2.8, plus 85 1.4 and 200 f2 for indoors - just my suggestions. I have all but the 70-200, and yet at virtually every event I've covered from American Football, ice hockey, netball, badminton, gymnastics, you name it, most of the photogs are using ONLY the 70-200 - there's obviously a good reason for this.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>When looking for bodies for any subject there will be things that are high priority - landscapes need maximum pixels, wildlife benefits from a crop factor to bring the subject closer. For sports the things I would look for in reviews and in your own trials are low light performance and AF speed/accuracy.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"For sports I'd suggest a full frame body..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just curious: Other than at high ISOs, what advantage does a 12 mp FX body offer over a 12 mp DX body for sports photography with a telephoto?</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Lex from my point of view a FX body offers zero advantage over a DX body for this.<br>

I shoot sports for a living and have no interest in a full frame camera. Give me the added reach of the DX body.<br>

With that said for dirt track I would look at a D300s and a 70-200 f/2.8 or maybe the 80-200 f/2.8 VR is not going to be of much use and the D300 drives my 80-200 f/2.8 very well.<br>

If you think you need more reach then 200mm look at the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 it is a great lens and the one that makes me the most money.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Lex, it's mainly the high ISO. I've a 400 2.8 and a 1.4x TC so there's very little that I need more reach for and I'd much prefer the extra low light performance.<br>

There's plenty more to the D3 over the D300 though, the responsive and overall feel to it, the bigger viewfinder, it's just so much nicer to use. Another thing is that if you're using 14 bit RAW files rather than 12 bit the D3 maintains 9fps while the D300 drops to about 2fps.<br>

It's probably that I've been shooting a lot of indoor sports that the low light seems so important, although I shot American football over the weekend and the 400 without the converter had plenty of reach.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Just to add a little more. I want to re-iterate that I do have BOTH the D3 and D300 so have no axe to grind and no need to "big up" my own camera as I have both. I can honestly say that I absolutely love using my D3, yet every time I use the D300 I just yearn to be using the D3 instead, it's as if I'm using it under duress and just by absolute neccessity. Maybe it's just me, but for me it's really that extreme.<br>

Steve</p>

 

[henkelphoto]

<p>Unlike Steve, I'm not solely a sports shooter, but I am a newspaper shooter, and I find myself using my D300 more for sports than my D700. I like the additional reach and since I shoot most sports JPEG, I really don't see a decrease in speed (I use the AA tray so my D300 and D700 both reach 8fps). I will admit that I really, really miss the larger viewfinder when shooting the D300.<br>

On to your original question about lenses, since you asked about dirt track, I would agree with others that the 70-200 will do most of your work. However, if you go to a NASCAR-type track, you will need a 300 or 400. With other sports, the 300 is invaulable. Baseball, day football, soccer, golf (an absolute must!), even tennis are all better with a 300. And that's even on a D300 body!<br>

My advice is to start with a D300s--they're only 1500 right now, and spend the extra money on a 70-200 VRII. Later on, you can add a D3s or whatever is the current model or buy a used D3s for a great price when the newest model comes out. I don't know who you are shooting for, but the D300 will give you good images at 3200iso if needed (remember, I work for a newspaper), which will give you a 2.8-4.0 f-stop at 250-400 at most high school stadiums for night football. We'd all like a higher shutter speed, but it's far better quality than when we used to have to use TriX pushed to 3200 and processed in HC110.<br>

Jerry</p>

[brooks_lester]

<p>If you're shooting at night I would go straight to full frame DSLR for the superior high ISO ability.</p>