DSLRUsers.com

If money was not the option and you were going to be serious about sports photography night/day indoor and outdoor, what would you purchase and why?
This question will hopefully give me and other users some idea of what would be considered the best equipment to spend our money on..

And how much of a second mortgage would be needed to make it happen

Brett

Ah, to dream......

Nikon D2x x3

One with the Nikkor 400mm F/2.8, One with the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 and one with a Nikkor 24-70 F/2.8. A shit load of cards, a Sony Viao laptop and a small child to carry it all and get me drinks.

Sports Photography = Frames per second. How about a 13fps Nikon F3 (just get someone else to pay for the film)

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf3ver2/variations/f3hspeed/index.htm

Seriously, an 8fps D2Hs or a D2X in crop mode would be the pick of the Nikon stable.

I'm a Nikon user however to answer this question I would have to say the Canon 1D MkII. Its eight-frames per sensor drive combined with great focus tracking and an excellent 8-megapixel senor (with 1.3 lens factor) makes it a formidable camera. Lenses... anything with an L in front of it should do the job, depending on what it is you want sort of sport you want to photography.

Antsl, the MkIIn, not the MkIIs, just so we get some clarity here because I'm pretty sure you're refferring to the n model.

That said, I agree here.

Either the MkIIn or probably a D2x/xs or D2h/hs.

Raskill wrote:Ah, to dream......

Nikon D2x x3

One with the Nikkor 400mm F/2.8, One with the Sigma 120-300mm F/2.8 and one with a Nikkor 24-70 F/2.8. A shit load of cards, a Sony Viao laptop and a small child to carry it all and get me drinks.

What kind of a dream is that?
... ditch the small child and get yourself a busty blonde

A Sony Vaio? *shudder*.... sounds like a recipe for a wasted computer.

Canon 1Dn MarkII or Nikon D2Hs, No other choices......
...and now you have to think about lenses!

If I had an unlimited budget I'd get a Canon 1Dn with a 300mm f/2.8 IS lens and monopod. I'd have a second 1Dn with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens for when the action got to close for the 300mm.
The 1Dn has 8.5 frames per second and 45 AF points. It was made for sports.
The first setup would be around $15000 give or take a $1000. The second would be around $10000.
It might also be nice to have a 400mm f/2.8 IS lens which has a rrp of $17999 but you could probably pick one up for around $12000.
A f/2.8 lens is a must if you are shooting at night or indoors. Have a look at a sporting event and you will find the majority of the pros using the above gear.

1DN + 70-200 2.8 IS

300 2.8 is also blisteringly sharp!

Murray1006 wrote:If I had an unlimited budget I'd get a Canon 1Dn with a 300mm f/2.8 IS lens and monopod. I'd have a second 1Dn with a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens for when the action got to close for the 300mm.
The 1Dn has 8.5 frames per second and 45 AF points. It was made for sports.
The first setup would be around $15000 give or take a $1000. The second would be around $10000.
It might also be nice to have a 400mm f/2.8 IS lens which has a rrp of $17999 but you could probably pick one up for around $12000.
A f/2.8 lens is a must if you are shooting at night or indoors. Have a look at a sporting event and you will find the majority of the pros using the above gear.

Doesn't the full-frame sensor short-change you at the long end? How about a DX sensor (as in D2Xs) and a 200/f2? Would cost you less than $13000


Cheers
Steffen.

The 1D MkII n is an APS sensor camera, Steffen.

In actuality, the 1Ds MkII -- the full-frame one -- is actually too slow for sports journalism and its 45 focus points are wasted on it.

If i had the money, 3 d2x.. a 28-70 2.8, 70-200 and a 300mm.. if i need bigger thats what a teleconvertor is for.. less weight for the size and keeps costs down a lil bit..

Tim

Nnnnsic wrote:The 1D MkII n is an APS sensor camera, Steffen.

Is that right? Who would have thunk? Canon putting an APS sized sensor into a $5000 camera... Just looked it up, it is actually a 1.3x sensor. How many sizes do they have?

Cheers
Steffen.

Canon 1dmk2n, 600 f4 Is, 70-200 2.8 IS, 17-40mm. Now where did that 22 grand go?

Thanks for all the advice so far and it is good to see what people think when you take the cost factor out of the equasion, so thanks for the replies so far.

Looks like the 1dmk2-n is getting support from both sides of the field
It looks like I better sell myself into slavery or find myself a sponsor who wants to splash around some cash.

With the advice given so far, I will research all the models metioned and suitable lenses for each.

Now to find a way to raise the money or equipment. Might as well have a crack at the dream

Who knows what will happen..

Brett

Dream about this:
D2X(s) x 2
D200 x 1
4GB CF x 10
Extra batteries x 4 each

400/2.8, 300/2.8 and a 70-200/2.8

Then a few tri/monopods and someone to run around with you.

IS is useless for sports since ur using hi shutter speeds. i have it and never use it.

1dmkiin + 70-200mm 2.8 + 400mm 2.8 + x1.4 tc

jerrysk8 wrote:IS is useless for sports since ur using hi shutter speeds. i have it and never use it.

1dmkiin + 70-200mm 2.8 + 400mm 2.8 + x1.4 tc

OT I was wondering this not long ago, I suppose it may help with slower panning shots, but would be a waste of dollars for high shutter speed shots.

With all due respect, if you think IS is useless for sport you are dreaming. You do not shoot high shutter speeds all of the time when shooting sport, often the available light does not allow it. The IS systems allow for panning and if you look at all of the white lenses out there being used for sport, they have IS on them. It is a very handy tool which can help you in a huge amount of situations....

The IS system on my 70-200 lens has two modes. Mode 1 for normal shooting and Mode 2 for panning. In Mode 2 the side to side stabilisation is disabled making it perfect for shooting sports.

jerrysk8 wrote:IS is useless for sports since ur using hi shutter speeds. i have it and never use it.

1dmkiin + 70-200mm 2.8 + 400mm 2.8 + x1.4 tc

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think that you might be in the minority however.

Why do you think that all sports photography reequires the use of a fast shutter speed? Many of the best sports photos are shot with a slow shutter speed, to add the impact of motion.

I would have thought the usefulness of VR or IS would depend on the sport? Bit hard to judge all sports. Just off the top of my head and I have never shot it, bodybuilding which is usually inside on a stage seems a natural for VR or IS.

Or avoiding completely.

Here is some fun...

1dmk2n with 24-70 2.8
1dmk2n with 200 f/1.8
1dmk2n with 400 f/2.8 IS with 2xTC
and
5D with 24mm 1.4 for low light stuff

or

D2hs with 17-55 DX (not my money!)
D2x with 200VR f/2 and 1.7TCII
D2hs with 600mm f/4 and 1.4TCII
and
D200 with 28mm 1.4 for low light stuff

Glen wrote:I would have thought the usefulness of VR or IS would depend on the sport?

I think for shooting chess competitions VR/IS is useless. You have to shoot at 1/4000s or 1/8000. Those bastards think very fast...!


Cheers
Steffen.

In my spare time I photograph snails mating - as such, I have never had the need for VR

sirhc55 wrote:In my spare time I photograph snails mating - as such, I have never had the need for VR

I am relieved you're a man with little 'spare' time

Ive had no trouble shooting with the 70-200 VR for rugby League. Vr as ive said in the past has saved my arse. As with low light shooting in sport mode its something Ive come to rely upon. You cannot beat the speed of focus hands down.
jethro

yes it all depends on what sport your shooting and who your shooting for. it also depends on your technique and the way you handle the camera too. i can get motion blur without the need of using IS. the only reason i got IS was for the weather sealing since i shoot alot of wakeboarding. can't really use IS during the day and maintain the shallow dof i want, so if i wanted motion blur i'd rather save myself a grand and do it in ps. why do all the white lenses have IS? well if you dumped that much money on a lense you'd want all the bells and whistles on it.

all i was suggesting is that if your buying a 70-200 dont get the IS and put the money elsewhere, maybe towards a flash and a x1.4 tc. they would be way more handy tools than having IS on ur lens. unless ur loaded then by all means get it.

this is my 2c or am i still dreaming.

Jerry,

VR/IS doesn't seem to be that expensive an option to include on a lens. Look at Nikon's 24-120 and 18-200 VR lenses. The former can be had for around $600 or so, new.

So, pulling this from lenses isn't going to realise that big a saving. Further, some cameras are building this technology into the body.

If you want shallow DoF, there are other ways to do this too: neutral density filters spring immediately to mind.

And rarely have I seen motion added in PP that doesn't look as if it's motion added in PP.

As you say, skill and technique are definitely the way to go; but VR/IS is merely another tool available in your toolbox.

the whole time i've been referring to canon 70-200 IS and nonIS. off the canon website nonIS -> $2409, IS -> $3589. difference -> $1180 which is heaps of money. ~50% more btw i've never added motion blur in pp. and how many nd filters would u need if shooting in the middle of the day? i dunno, i don't own any. i thought it was a landscape tool.

meh i'm over it. just don't get the 1200mm cos i don't think it comes with IS

jerrysk8 wrote:how many nd filters would u need if shooting in the middle of the day?

Just one.